Cuomo Declares a State of Emergency for the Subway(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Cuomo Declares a State of Emergency for the Subway
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/nyregion/cuomo-declares-a-state-of-emergency-for-the-subway.html
104 comments
I would argue that a large reason why infrastructure tends to fall into such sorry states of disrepair in the US is because of the vast misalignment of interests between politicians and the services. When the person responsible for this stuff has a shelf life of maybe four years, there's simply no incentive to allocate adequate amounts of time, energy, and capital towards things which someone else will inevitably get credit for because of the time it takes. Besides, no one gets praised for this sort of thing...it's just something they're expected to do. The whole thing is a shame.
It's not a capital problem, it's a mismanagement problem. The London Tube spends about $2.9 billion (not including capital costs) to move 1.3 billion riders per year. The NYC Subway spends about $8 billion (again, not including capital costs) for 1.7 billion riders per year. That's roughly double adjusted for ridership.
One thing to consider is that London has downtime when the Tube isn't being used. Most lines have an overnight break in the neighborhood of 4-5 hours. Even with the limited overnight weekend routes that have been introduce in recent years, each line still at least 20 hours a week were maintenance has full control of the system. NYC's Subway runs 24/7 with no easy maintenance windows. I image maintenance is simpler and therefore cheaper when you don't have to do it when the system is being used. There is also the obvious added labor costs involved in increasing the hours of operation. I have no idea what percentage of the discrepancy that explains, but it is certainly part of it.
MTA can and does shutdown redundant parallel lines on the weekends and yet 5 years on there are still significant delays due to Sandy repairs.
It's an incentive problem. Calling these things management problems (while technically accurate) is, unfortunately, unhelpful. People keep complaining about it, but the structure of our political system is such that it will never get better.
> It's not a capital problem, it's a mismanagement problem
Do you have any evidence of this?
Being a naïve Californian, I would assume that there are plenty of variables other than management (labor costs, union membership, labor laws, cultural status of subway workers, legal statues, building requirements, vendors and their rates) that could plausibly represent most of the difference.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Being a naïve Californian, I would assume that there are plenty of variables other than management (labor costs, union membership, labor laws, cultural status of subway workers, legal statues, building requirements, vendors and their rates) that could plausibly represent most of the difference.
I noticed the enthusiasm about relaxing procurement rules. I suspect that's going to bypass rules established by unions and other such things.
> labor costs, union membership, labor laws, cultural status of subway workers, legal statues, building requirements, vendors and their rates
I find it amusing how Democrats always obsess about fiscally conservative peoples obsession with 'deregulation', so when big news worthy accidents happen they point to conservatives and say 'see this is what you get with deregulation'. As if the only thing we're critical of is the money spent making sure accidents don't happen. Workplace safety and oversight of critical infrastructure is probably the lowest on the list of things I'm concerned with.
There are countless other bureaucratic government organizations that are crippled by incompetence and excess administrative oversight that are failing to accomplish their simple assigned tasks, to the point where it's now standard practice to expect costs to be 2-3x projections and only a fool would expect heads of public workers to roll as a result. Just blame the current leader of x polticial party, right?
I'm not convinced being in support of public infrastructure means I have to support throwing billions more into an organization that consistently fails to perform with the billions they already have.
And this has as much to do with the small group of consultants and big third party companies these people sign extravagant contracts with - under the guise of 'free markets'. So when these projects ultimately fail to be delivered, or end up 3x the cost, the big government liberals can blame capitalism. Because their idea of 'free market competition' is hiring the same 3 companies who managed to have enough lawyers and political connections to navigate their complex administrative systems put in place by these same bureaucrats, who often also end up being employees of these same companies later in their careers.
Lowest bidder government RFPs are just another layer of obscurity sold as a solution to this problem which just further masks responsibility with something that looks like a market on the surface but fails to hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. /rant
I find it amusing how Democrats always obsess about fiscally conservative peoples obsession with 'deregulation', so when big news worthy accidents happen they point to conservatives and say 'see this is what you get with deregulation'. As if the only thing we're critical of is the money spent making sure accidents don't happen. Workplace safety and oversight of critical infrastructure is probably the lowest on the list of things I'm concerned with.
There are countless other bureaucratic government organizations that are crippled by incompetence and excess administrative oversight that are failing to accomplish their simple assigned tasks, to the point where it's now standard practice to expect costs to be 2-3x projections and only a fool would expect heads of public workers to roll as a result. Just blame the current leader of x polticial party, right?
I'm not convinced being in support of public infrastructure means I have to support throwing billions more into an organization that consistently fails to perform with the billions they already have.
And this has as much to do with the small group of consultants and big third party companies these people sign extravagant contracts with - under the guise of 'free markets'. So when these projects ultimately fail to be delivered, or end up 3x the cost, the big government liberals can blame capitalism. Because their idea of 'free market competition' is hiring the same 3 companies who managed to have enough lawyers and political connections to navigate their complex administrative systems put in place by these same bureaucrats, who often also end up being employees of these same companies later in their careers.
Lowest bidder government RFPs are just another layer of obscurity sold as a solution to this problem which just further masks responsibility with something that looks like a market on the surface but fails to hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. /rant
Did I miss something or an edited post? Where does the parent mention anything about politics or their views on this?
I don't really understand what your post has to do with the one it is replying to, but I agree with you that lowest bidder RFPs are not capitalistic competition.
...but what is the answer? You can't have a free market subway system that throws any old traffic down the tubes like you can with roads. So there has to be some kind of centralised ownership. (indeed, the NYC subway used to be a system of independent private systems, and they all failed as businesses).
Personally, I don't see how the blame here lies with the usual tired party politics blame game. There are so many different factors at work.
...but what is the answer? You can't have a free market subway system that throws any old traffic down the tubes like you can with roads. So there has to be some kind of centralised ownership. (indeed, the NYC subway used to be a system of independent private systems, and they all failed as businesses).
Personally, I don't see how the blame here lies with the usual tired party politics blame game. There are so many different factors at work.
It can also be an external mismanagement problem. If funds are only allocated to the subway to pay upkeep and the state never funds improvements, you can easily end up with huge maintenance costs to keep dilapidated ancient systems in place that could have been upgraded a decade ago and have been saving money most of this time.
Same problem with janitors, or a NOC/ops team...it doesn't enhance your career to say "we kept everything working", and building a better solution requires much more investment and has a much longer-term deliverable that it's almost impossible to get people who are trying to "climb the ladder" or get re-elected for a second and final term to cut out a significant portion of the budget for.
> ...it doesn't enhance your career to say "we kept everything working", and building a better solution requires much more investment and has a much longer-term deliverable that it's almost impossible...to cut out a significant portion of the budget for.
The next time one of your managers takes this approach, remind them Amazon did not accept "we kept everything working" as good enough infrastructure. We're in a unique period in history where nearly every part of the infrastructure of future generations is up for grabs for re-imagining, because most of our civilization's infrastructure does not embed computational capabilities. Does your management want the status quo, or do they want 10X or better improvements in cost and utility that can be sold as the new infrastructure?
The last time Amazon did that to a widely-accepted status quo infrastructure, we ended up with AWS.
The next time one of your managers takes this approach, remind them Amazon did not accept "we kept everything working" as good enough infrastructure. We're in a unique period in history where nearly every part of the infrastructure of future generations is up for grabs for re-imagining, because most of our civilization's infrastructure does not embed computational capabilities. Does your management want the status quo, or do they want 10X or better improvements in cost and utility that can be sold as the new infrastructure?
The last time Amazon did that to a widely-accepted status quo infrastructure, we ended up with AWS.
Most countries WITH term limits seem to be doing much better than countries without term limits.
Yeah it's funny. Anecdotally, I think most people would agree that other countries, particularly Western European ones, seem to just care more about transportation infrastructure. Maybe it's just a cultural thing. But there is still that interest misalignment I would argue. And voters tend to be as myopic as the politicians, always waiting for a crisis to roll around before actually caring.
I can assure you that New Yorkers, perhaps uniquely in all of America, care deeply about transportation infrastructure. The problem is that the MTA (which runs the New York City subway, mind you) is inexplicably run at the state level, meaning decisions about NYC public transit are made in Albany, three hours away. And naturally the state as a whole is not willing to invest as much money into the subway as NYC itself would be, even though the majority of the state's tax revenue comes from NYC and its metro area. It's your classic case of the urban center subsidizing the rest of the people in the state and not getting anything for it in return. There's actually a New York City secessionist movement (from NY state, not the US) for reasons along these lines.
Most city residents should support these kinds of secessionist ideas. State tax dollars around the entire US subsidize rural living by maintaining unsustainable roads and utilities infrastructure to reach people with way more capital on average than the people in the cities getting the short end of the stick.
It comes back to incentives. If you don't support high-volume infrastructure to enable city growth - in an economic climate and era where practically all work is optimized in cities, and where living outside a city is simply an extravagant luxury - but you do support broad low volume high upkeep infrastructure all over rural areas, you build an incentives structure to artificially drive more people out of efficient, high density cores and into twig mcmansions guzzling water to feed lawns that nobody uses for anything because they are inside all day anyway.
The better structure would obviously be to promote what costs less per capita while also promoting economic growth - promoting high density living, even if the upfront costs are high. Electoral incentives, however, are practically opposite such a notion, sadly.
It comes back to incentives. If you don't support high-volume infrastructure to enable city growth - in an economic climate and era where practically all work is optimized in cities, and where living outside a city is simply an extravagant luxury - but you do support broad low volume high upkeep infrastructure all over rural areas, you build an incentives structure to artificially drive more people out of efficient, high density cores and into twig mcmansions guzzling water to feed lawns that nobody uses for anything because they are inside all day anyway.
The better structure would obviously be to promote what costs less per capita while also promoting economic growth - promoting high density living, even if the upfront costs are high. Electoral incentives, however, are practically opposite such a notion, sadly.
I agree with you.
The rest of the state wants NYC to gtfo as bad as NYC wants out.
The problem is that their unfortunately economically interdependent enough that when the idea gets floated the people who stand to lose money make a big fuss, sway public opinion and the idea is dead in the water. IIRC there was a little bit of noise about a similar split in Washington recently. NorCal would probably be much happier without SoCal. The rest of IL would probably do ok without Chicago, etc.
The pattern is that people in the country really don't like a bunch of people who are nothing like them running the state and telling them what to do and the city thinks the country is full of backwards hicks who are holding them back. They'd be better off without each other.
IMO being able to actually self govern is well worth whatever the price is.
The rest of the state wants NYC to gtfo as bad as NYC wants out.
The problem is that their unfortunately economically interdependent enough that when the idea gets floated the people who stand to lose money make a big fuss, sway public opinion and the idea is dead in the water. IIRC there was a little bit of noise about a similar split in Washington recently. NorCal would probably be much happier without SoCal. The rest of IL would probably do ok without Chicago, etc.
The pattern is that people in the country really don't like a bunch of people who are nothing like them running the state and telling them what to do and the city thinks the country is full of backwards hicks who are holding them back. They'd be better off without each other.
IMO being able to actually self govern is well worth whatever the price is.
This is the kind of realization Brexit should throw in your face. There are highly disparate groups of people with different ideologies that want nothing really to do with one another, and the only reasons they are forced to mutually participate are for historical inertias sake, and for the sake of those who profit off the status quo.
The inerta relates back to why large empires and countries formed to begin with. With the advent of NATO and the nuclear deterrent it is ludicrous to think anyone who is either nucularly armed or has defensive pacts with the armed could possibly be attacked or invaded by a traditional military. War today is predominantly economic, but allowing disparate populations to go their separate ways while maintaining positive relations and trade for mutual self interest only serves to grow economies in the long term.
The inerta relates back to why large empires and countries formed to begin with. With the advent of NATO and the nuclear deterrent it is ludicrous to think anyone who is either nucularly armed or has defensive pacts with the armed could possibly be attacked or invaded by a traditional military. War today is predominantly economic, but allowing disparate populations to go their separate ways while maintaining positive relations and trade for mutual self interest only serves to grow economies in the long term.
> The problem is that the MTA (which runs the New York City subway, mind you) is inexplicably run at the state level, ...
Previously the new York city mayors had much more control, but they always had a lot of pressure to not increase fares. Note that the nickel fare only ended a decade or so before, after having existed for more than sixty years. So the system needed to increase fares to become more viable, but the mayors needed to run on platforms of not increasing fares.
Putting the mta in state hands was seen as a better, more technocratic solution, allowing the agency to do things that are necessary even if they aren't popular.
Previously the new York city mayors had much more control, but they always had a lot of pressure to not increase fares. Note that the nickel fare only ended a decade or so before, after having existed for more than sixty years. So the system needed to increase fares to become more viable, but the mayors needed to run on platforms of not increasing fares.
Putting the mta in state hands was seen as a better, more technocratic solution, allowing the agency to do things that are necessary even if they aren't popular.
Even though I barely ever take the subway (only a few times per month), I'm perfectly content to largely fund it from my tax revenue rather from fares, if that is what is necessary. Even if I barely use it, I know that it has substantial benefits for many other people around me (e.g. people who work in restaurants and live far out in Brooklyn/Queens/the Bronx), and I'm willing to pay for that.
New York City's population is what, half of New York State? How do NYC concerns not dominate state politics?
They don't have half the legislative districts.
For some context, the population of New York city (NYC) in the 2010 US Census was ~8.1 million, which is ~42% of the ~19.4 million for the state.
Of the 63 seats in the New York State Senate, 26 represent NYC. Of the 150 seats in the New York State Assembly, 65 represent NYC. Those represent ~41% and ~43% of the seats in the upper and lower house, respectively.
Of the 63 seats in the New York State Senate, 26 represent NYC. Of the 150 seats in the New York State Assembly, 65 represent NYC. Those represent ~41% and ~43% of the seats in the upper and lower house, respectively.
Ahh, rural malapportionment. Introducing one-vote-one-value seems a bit less extreme than secession, but maybe that's just an ambit claim.
Any citation on this?
Tokyo has one of the world's best subway systems. Like New York's used to be, Tokyo's are still privatized; owned by three different competing private entities.
One big difference, besides upgrades and maintenance, in addition to ridership is the absence of a flat fee. On the other hand they ate self sustaining and keep updating their rolling stock as well as infrastructure.
One big difference, besides upgrades and maintenance, in addition to ridership is the absence of a flat fee. On the other hand they ate self sustaining and keep updating their rolling stock as well as infrastructure.
I don't think self sustaining subways are a good thing. You want tax subsidies on ridership to bring the price really low, to enable as many people as possible to use it as often as possible. Profitable infrastructure defeats the purpose of infrastructure, which is to be a force multiplier on others productivity. Introducing profit motive diminishes the potential effectiveness.
I understand Tokyo's subway systems developed in a unique environment before and after WWII, never the less, despite being commercial entities, they best just about any state run subway system in the world.
Then perhaps the U.S. needs a more party-centric proportional representation electoral system, with less focus on individual candidates and more on the party. Then it will be the party that's responsible.
However, you also need proportional representation, so you can actually have multiple parties. Otherwise, the "other" big party can just "wait its turn" to win the elections again - it doesn't have to prove anything.
However, you also need proportional representation, so you can actually have multiple parties. Otherwise, the "other" big party can just "wait its turn" to win the elections again - it doesn't have to prove anything.
I think this is a likely counter-example to your premise. Cuomo has had a ‘shelf-life’ of a lot more than 4 years...
I think the underlying problem is more a lack of accountability and the very low give-a-crap factor for politicians.
I think the underlying problem is more a lack of accountability and the very low give-a-crap factor for politicians.
> Besides, no one gets praised for this sort of thing...it's just something they're expected to do.
How do countries like Japan or Switzerland manage to keep everything relatively pristine?
How do countries like Japan or Switzerland manage to keep everything relatively pristine?
Maintenance simply isn't glamorous. No politician wants to stand up and say "I did 4 years and the roads are still working"
One option would be to open up more infrastructure initiatives to direct democracy. Arguably the most heavily invested body to getting the subways improved is the people who actually live in New York and use them.
Making this feasible would require a more efficient platform for soliciting ideas from citizens, voting on them and tracking overall execution which doesn't exist today. This isn't, however, an intractable problem - there are distributed trust systems (based on so-called "trust algorithms") that are being designed today such as Ethereum.
Making this feasible would require a more efficient platform for soliciting ideas from citizens, voting on them and tracking overall execution which doesn't exist today. This isn't, however, an intractable problem - there are distributed trust systems (based on so-called "trust algorithms") that are being designed today such as Ethereum.
It'd be much easier just to make voting day a national holiday.
A big problem with things now is voter education, and people go to the polls without actually understanding what they are voting for - they are rushed and push through, or don't vote at all.
A big problem with things now is voter education, and people go to the polls without actually understanding what they are voting for - they are rushed and push through, or don't vote at all.
Surely it's more that they don't want to understand what they're voting for. Their main concern is to keep the other party out of power no matter what. Any thoughts about whether the party they're voting for is actually doing what they want are secondary and end up getting ignored if they conflict with the primary goal of not letting the "baddies" win.
You can't blame individual citizens for structural (sometimes intentional) flaws of first past the post voting.
All discussions on politics really boil back down to this - representation sucks because first past the post sucks. Changing the voting system in most places is a constitutional amendment. Hence, it will never happen. Nothing can get better because the only people who can change it (and don't say third parties, remember, we are in a system structurally designed to kill opposition to the ruling duopoly) are the ones in power because of the system the way it is.
If people could vote for the person they want to rule, with (preferably) proportional instant runoff elections (and thus no fear of "the lesser of two evils"), almost none of the current politicians in any state would be in power.
All discussions on politics really boil back down to this - representation sucks because first past the post sucks. Changing the voting system in most places is a constitutional amendment. Hence, it will never happen. Nothing can get better because the only people who can change it (and don't say third parties, remember, we are in a system structurally designed to kill opposition to the ruling duopoly) are the ones in power because of the system the way it is.
If people could vote for the person they want to rule, with (preferably) proportional instant runoff elections (and thus no fear of "the lesser of two evils"), almost none of the current politicians in any state would be in power.
That's evidentially false though. We have a much better system in Australia and all the exact same problems. Most of it boils down to what the previous posters said. People are completely and wilfully uneducated. More than half the country (I'd say closer to 80-90%) are literally just voting for red team vs blue team with zero basic understanding of how the voting system even works.
The majority of people in Australia don't even know that we don't have FPTP voting, despite being asked to fill out preferences on the voting form. They also have no knowledge of how the senate voting works or even the senate's purpose in the government. The major parties and media conspire to keep this attitude prevalent.
The situation seems unsolvable. There's no incentive for the average person to dedicate any more time to politics than it takes to read a headline each day when they have their own lives to worry about. And such a shallow level of understanding is totally abusable by anyone and everyone with a pen in their hand.
The system is broken, but the voting system is just the tip of the iceberg.
The majority of people in Australia don't even know that we don't have FPTP voting, despite being asked to fill out preferences on the voting form. They also have no knowledge of how the senate voting works or even the senate's purpose in the government. The major parties and media conspire to keep this attitude prevalent.
The situation seems unsolvable. There's no incentive for the average person to dedicate any more time to politics than it takes to read a headline each day when they have their own lives to worry about. And such a shallow level of understanding is totally abusable by anyone and everyone with a pen in their hand.
The system is broken, but the voting system is just the tip of the iceberg.
I absolutely agree that the voting system is the tip of the iceburg, but Australia is actually progressing towards getting deeper into the bottomless hole of broken incentives.
The US, due to its founding documents, is permanently stuck on the surface, where at best people see the iceburg and can't even fathom the depths beneath - hence the near willful ignorance.
But isn't your example just demonstrating the incentives problem? Instead of it being at the level where, in the US, politicians are incentivized to preserve the status quo because that is what elected them, and to enable better representation would be to use power only they wield against their own self interest, you are just a graduated level lower - you start to enable more democratic elections, but then have the problem about educating anyone about it.
It is truly a hydra, because the education example plays out the same way - those that set the policy agenda of what is taught in schools, where civics and voting and taxes and budgeting should be taught but are not (at least stateside) were put in power by the ignorant, and thus it is in their own self interest and continued viability in politics to keep their voters ignorant. And it really does not matter who is elected or when - any person elected is always in a position to minimize the degree to which their electorate is educated, because emotional appeals are much simpler, and much more useful for personal ends, than rational and factual ones. You can't say one thing and do another and still get reelected when being scrutinized by an engaged, logical electorate who operate in a system that enables them to actually pick who they want to rule.
The US, due to its founding documents, is permanently stuck on the surface, where at best people see the iceburg and can't even fathom the depths beneath - hence the near willful ignorance.
But isn't your example just demonstrating the incentives problem? Instead of it being at the level where, in the US, politicians are incentivized to preserve the status quo because that is what elected them, and to enable better representation would be to use power only they wield against their own self interest, you are just a graduated level lower - you start to enable more democratic elections, but then have the problem about educating anyone about it.
It is truly a hydra, because the education example plays out the same way - those that set the policy agenda of what is taught in schools, where civics and voting and taxes and budgeting should be taught but are not (at least stateside) were put in power by the ignorant, and thus it is in their own self interest and continued viability in politics to keep their voters ignorant. And it really does not matter who is elected or when - any person elected is always in a position to minimize the degree to which their electorate is educated, because emotional appeals are much simpler, and much more useful for personal ends, than rational and factual ones. You can't say one thing and do another and still get reelected when being scrutinized by an engaged, logical electorate who operate in a system that enables them to actually pick who they want to rule.
We are in a system designed to kill opposition to the ruling duopoly and yet the ruling duopoly has changed multiple times.
That would possibly have been the case in 1965, but party membership is at historically low levels and in multiple states independents outnumber either single party.
Unfortunately, 50-65% of people who are eligible to vote actually do so. Often, they do end up voting along party lines, but that's not because of party loyalty so much as a lack of knowledge regarding the candidates. If you give people the opportunity to learn about these things and impress upon them the importance of doing so, they will be more likely to vote rationally.
Unfortunately, 50-65% of people who are eligible to vote actually do so. Often, they do end up voting along party lines, but that's not because of party loyalty so much as a lack of knowledge regarding the candidates. If you give people the opportunity to learn about these things and impress upon them the importance of doing so, they will be more likely to vote rationally.
Is there anything folks won't just add "with a blockchain!" to and claim to have solved a problem?
I'm not sure I understand the reference since I don't comment on or look at much blockchain related articles here on HN. (Most of my research has been tangential to my former employment as a web security developer.)
Is there a technical reason that a blockchain isn't suitable as one part of a possible solution to improving the speed, reliability and security of voting in the United States? My understanding of the blockchain concept is that what it provides is a proof-of-effort consensus-based system for creating an open and auditable ledger for transactions which would seem to fit the requirement of having an open and verifiable voting ledger for ballot initiatives.
Is there a technical reason that a blockchain isn't suitable as one part of a possible solution to improving the speed, reliability and security of voting in the United States? My understanding of the blockchain concept is that what it provides is a proof-of-effort consensus-based system for creating an open and auditable ledger for transactions which would seem to fit the requirement of having an open and verifiable voting ledger for ballot initiatives.
> Is there a technical reason that a blockchain isn't suitable as one part of a possible solution to improving the speed, reliability and security of voting in the United States?
The better question is: what do you gain from using a blockchain? Distributed ledgers aren't magically faster, more reliable, and secure than a centralized ledger. They just don't require trusting any single party. But you're proposing using a distributed ledger to record voting on policies executed by centralized political entities.
At the end of the day, you still have to trust the MTA or some state or local government to do what your voters tell them to. And your voting eligibility is tied to citizenship and/or proof of residency, as established by your inclusion in some centralized database anyway.
So assuming electronic direct democracy is the solution here (and that's a big assumption), you're probably better off just having the MTA set up a webform tied to a database and calling it a day.
The better question is: what do you gain from using a blockchain? Distributed ledgers aren't magically faster, more reliable, and secure than a centralized ledger. They just don't require trusting any single party. But you're proposing using a distributed ledger to record voting on policies executed by centralized political entities.
At the end of the day, you still have to trust the MTA or some state or local government to do what your voters tell them to. And your voting eligibility is tied to citizenship and/or proof of residency, as established by your inclusion in some centralized database anyway.
So assuming electronic direct democracy is the solution here (and that's a big assumption), you're probably better off just having the MTA set up a webform tied to a database and calling it a day.
> Is there a technical reason that a blockchain isn't suitable as one part of a possible solution to improving the speed, reliability and security of voting in the United States?
Ignoring for a moment things like hard forks, 51% attacks, lost keys, theft of votes via malware, etc., the biggest non-technical objection I'd see to it is that the concept of a secret ballot is considered absolutely critical in the US.
Ignoring for a moment things like hard forks, 51% attacks, lost keys, theft of votes via malware, etc., the biggest non-technical objection I'd see to it is that the concept of a secret ballot is considered absolutely critical in the US.
[deleted]
it is far easier to promise service than it is to pay for it. in that regard making promises to the users of the service and workers is one thing, when it comes to paying the bill they always kick the can down the road.
NYC is the only American city which relies on heavy transit, just a little more than half the people working there use it. Only one other city crests ten percent and the after that its five percent and down.
It is the most expensive transportation option available to commuters at all stages when you calculate it per passenger mile, this is with subsidies included. Even building all those roads the automobile less that a fourth of the cost and most public transit will be superseded by autonomous cars and buses; the later which can adapt to changing needs that subway and heavy rail cannot.
Besides all the deferred maintenance and NYC is not alone in this, many lines are tens of billions in deferred maintenance, many lines face hundreds of millions with a few at a billion in underfunded pensions. Worse, subsidies have not increased ridership but instead employment. When most lines came about in the hay days of such it was nearly 60k riders per worker, that has fallen to less than 30k riders being served per worker.
the simple fact is that such transit is expensive to build and maintain and even with incredible subsidy they cannot get enough people to ride it though NYC gets close. NYC has the same problem the rest do, no one wants to pay anywhere near what the actual cost is per passenger mile to use it.
NYC is the only American city which relies on heavy transit, just a little more than half the people working there use it. Only one other city crests ten percent and the after that its five percent and down.
It is the most expensive transportation option available to commuters at all stages when you calculate it per passenger mile, this is with subsidies included. Even building all those roads the automobile less that a fourth of the cost and most public transit will be superseded by autonomous cars and buses; the later which can adapt to changing needs that subway and heavy rail cannot.
Besides all the deferred maintenance and NYC is not alone in this, many lines are tens of billions in deferred maintenance, many lines face hundreds of millions with a few at a billion in underfunded pensions. Worse, subsidies have not increased ridership but instead employment. When most lines came about in the hay days of such it was nearly 60k riders per worker, that has fallen to less than 30k riders being served per worker.
the simple fact is that such transit is expensive to build and maintain and even with incredible subsidy they cannot get enough people to ride it though NYC gets close. NYC has the same problem the rest do, no one wants to pay anywhere near what the actual cost is per passenger mile to use it.
this is such a bad take. the point of public transit is not to get enough people to ride it so the system is profitable. do we expect roads to be profitable? they aren't, even if you say "the gas tax".
and lol at heavy rail can't meet needs that cars can. A single subway line in New York can carry 60k people _in each direction_ at peak capacity. Autonomous cars are years away and will never achieve that efficiency just because of space.
and lol at heavy rail can't meet needs that cars can. A single subway line in New York can carry 60k people _in each direction_ at peak capacity. Autonomous cars are years away and will never achieve that efficiency just because of space.
Subways are the most efficient way to move people in terms of square footage needed to move a person at speed, with heavy rail a close second, and walking third. You can fit 4-6 adults comfortably on a subway train with less space than those same people in a private automobile.
But farebox recovery rate is a good metric for measuring how well a public transit system actually serves (and fails to serve would-be) passengers.
Silicon Valley's VTA is among the worst, as its routes were chosen more for political purposes than optimal service.
Silicon Valley's VTA is among the worst, as its routes were chosen more for political purposes than optimal service.
Only one other city crests ten percent and the after that its five percent and down.
Easily available figures suggest you're... way off with that estimate.
Easily available figures suggest you're... way off with that estimate.
6 million people ride it every day.
Where are you getting your numbers from? Other countries build subways that are better and cheaper than they are in America.
Where are you getting your numbers from? Other countries build subways that are better and cheaper than they are in America.
Where do you get your numbers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_...
This comment seems to have touched a nerve; it's voted way down.
Can anyone rebut Shivetya's claims?
1. Subway is the most expensive transportation option per passenger mile, when you include subsidies.
2. Only one other US city (besides NYC) has 10% of workers riding the subway. (If I'm reading that right - is heavy transit distinct from "light rail" here?)
If you can't rebut them, what good is voting them down?
Can anyone rebut Shivetya's claims?
1. Subway is the most expensive transportation option per passenger mile, when you include subsidies.
2. Only one other US city (besides NYC) has 10% of workers riding the subway. (If I'm reading that right - is heavy transit distinct from "light rail" here?)
If you can't rebut them, what good is voting them down?
I would turn that request on its head: can Shivetya produce any numbers to prove the claim about 10% of workers or the subway being the most expensive option? We're under no obligation to rebut a point that doesn't back itself up.
Amtrak is in a sorry state as well. They announced recently that they are going to perform much needed maintenance on NY Penn station (which they own, and which the MTA's LIRR uses) [1].
From former Amtrak CEO David Hughes:
"The accumulated deferred maintenance and lack of attention really makes it almost a third-world operation." [2]
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-crash-philadelphia-highli...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/nyregion/nj-transit-sched...
From former Amtrak CEO David Hughes:
"The accumulated deferred maintenance and lack of attention really makes it almost a third-world operation." [2]
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-crash-philadelphia-highli...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/nyregion/nj-transit-sched...
Amtrak should have been euthanized decades ago. They have been abysmal for years, perhaps somewhat better in the Northeast.
The Northeast routes should have been sold off to regional transit authorities and the rest of the system shut down.
The Northeast routes should have been sold off to regional transit authorities and the rest of the system shut down.
You're not wrong. The northeast system is absolutely viable--bankrolled mostly by business travelers who get a lot of value out of being plopped down in the middle of Manhattan or D.C. at the end of the trip. The underlying rail is viable for commuter lines too. Otherwise it's a boondoggle and diverts money that could be better used elsewhere.
It's hard to say whether the long distance trains are viable as a transportation service, because they're also in the "land cruise" business and oddly enough that part seems even less profitable. It's the source of a lot of the expenses, especially for things like food service. Amtrak has actually tried cutting the diner on one of the Florida trains and dropping sleeper prices by $100, and is making considerably more money on that train, so there's still some potential to get close to 100% cost recovery on LD service if Amtrak gets out of running the land cruise business, which it seems reluctant to do because of tradition.
I'm not sure that works long term. Even budget airlines offer meals and long haul flights, and Amtrak long distance routes are often 15+ hours long.
That's failing to understand what Amtrak is, what it does, or why it exists.
There are effectively 3 types of services Amtrak runs.
1. Long distance trains. These are the 1-2x a day or less cross-country runs, the legacy of pre-1971 history, effectively. Because they run 95%+ on freight company rails in most cases, they're often very late, very slow, and often do not provide a very practical service or even come close to generating reasonable revenue number. Amtrak runs these at the behest of the federal government, who picks up the tab for their losses.
It's easy to say, "cut these!", and not necessarily wrong. But while it's not a very good service, it gets Amtrak into 46 states. It's often the only transportation option of any kind in those rural areas besides driving yourself. Even buses don't serve a lot of the places Amtrak rumbles through. The losses are relatively small per year, and as such Congress is generally loathe to kill service that affects THEIR state. That's the political angle.
The other angle is that it serves as a placeholder of sorts for the future. It keeps the idea of long-distance passenger rail in existence. It keeps the right to run that 1-2x a day service over those lines active. It's a lot easier to negotiate to run a couple more trains a day than it is to negotiate to start running on a line you don't run on. It's a lot easier to get community support to expand/improve a thing that exists than convince people to bring what they've never had before. Many recent expansions of the state supported services (more on what that is next) have been over that.
2. State supported services are what they sound like. States pay Amtrak to run service. States may buy equipment that Amtrak runs or it may be part of the general Amtrak fleet. States pay for the operating costs/number of trains, capital improvements, etc. Amtrak serves as the operator fulfilling the contract. Many of these provide "real" service that is regularly used by people where it operates. Some states are putting in enough in upgrades to even get time-competitive with driving. There is no reason for the federal government to be altering how Amtrak handles this. If states want to, they're perfectly free to hire someone else. Attempts at that have mostly not gone well.
3. Northeast Corridor. Pretty much vital to the Northeast, without exaggeration. It moves more people than planes or buses do between most of the 1-2 city hops. It's badly in need of billions of $ of improvements, which is the primary issue with it, not Amtrak's management of it. Even as it is it's critical infrastructure. It turns an operating profit, but doesn't cover capital expenses. It would probably be a legal and political nightmare to try to split it up among the states or come up with a successor given how many states are involved in it, it needs to be one entity.
There are effectively 3 types of services Amtrak runs.
1. Long distance trains. These are the 1-2x a day or less cross-country runs, the legacy of pre-1971 history, effectively. Because they run 95%+ on freight company rails in most cases, they're often very late, very slow, and often do not provide a very practical service or even come close to generating reasonable revenue number. Amtrak runs these at the behest of the federal government, who picks up the tab for their losses.
It's easy to say, "cut these!", and not necessarily wrong. But while it's not a very good service, it gets Amtrak into 46 states. It's often the only transportation option of any kind in those rural areas besides driving yourself. Even buses don't serve a lot of the places Amtrak rumbles through. The losses are relatively small per year, and as such Congress is generally loathe to kill service that affects THEIR state. That's the political angle.
The other angle is that it serves as a placeholder of sorts for the future. It keeps the idea of long-distance passenger rail in existence. It keeps the right to run that 1-2x a day service over those lines active. It's a lot easier to negotiate to run a couple more trains a day than it is to negotiate to start running on a line you don't run on. It's a lot easier to get community support to expand/improve a thing that exists than convince people to bring what they've never had before. Many recent expansions of the state supported services (more on what that is next) have been over that.
2. State supported services are what they sound like. States pay Amtrak to run service. States may buy equipment that Amtrak runs or it may be part of the general Amtrak fleet. States pay for the operating costs/number of trains, capital improvements, etc. Amtrak serves as the operator fulfilling the contract. Many of these provide "real" service that is regularly used by people where it operates. Some states are putting in enough in upgrades to even get time-competitive with driving. There is no reason for the federal government to be altering how Amtrak handles this. If states want to, they're perfectly free to hire someone else. Attempts at that have mostly not gone well.
3. Northeast Corridor. Pretty much vital to the Northeast, without exaggeration. It moves more people than planes or buses do between most of the 1-2 city hops. It's badly in need of billions of $ of improvements, which is the primary issue with it, not Amtrak's management of it. Even as it is it's critical infrastructure. It turns an operating profit, but doesn't cover capital expenses. It would probably be a legal and political nightmare to try to split it up among the states or come up with a successor given how many states are involved in it, it needs to be one entity.
“We know what we need to do. He mentioned the subway’s
aging signal system. We live in a digital age. Our signal
system isn’t even analog. It’s mechanical.”
You might find this interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-d...
It's actually partially true. The NYCT signalling system is more like a sandwich. At the bottom they have a legacy system called AWS. It is built using a logic of relays that will raise or lower mechanical arms on the tracks. When the arm is raised it will collide with a valve on the train that, once opened will apply the brakes on the train forcibly. The logic driving this is from the beginning of the 20th century and seriously pretty clever. The guys at the time even timed the relays to raise arms according to the recommended maximum speed for driving the train. On top of this, computer based systems have been deployed, especially CBTC, starting in the Canarsie line. So, frankly, the statement made is quite inaccurate. The system works in the sense that it allows higher potential capacity. The real problem is that with a legacy sandwich so deep the failure rate is terrible, especially when age of material and obsolescence kicks in. Now imagine fixing a technical debt that spans nearly 2 centuries, with limited maintenance time, and life critical functions buried inside. This is the problem.
Reminds me of an article I read on some guys that updated the controls for a sewage tunnel that runs under the Hudson river. The more they investigated the dynamics of a 1000 foot long, 10 diameter pipe full of poo, the more terrified they became. And more impressed with the long dead engineers that originally solved the problem in the 1920's.
Original controls were all mechanical.
Original controls were all mechanical.
What Adam (?) said, but now in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjx3S3UjmnA
Look up mechanical signal interlocking. It's pretty interesting.
"Every New York City Subway Line Is Getting Worse. Here’s Why."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw...
Ignore it and short-change it while hoping the NYC mayor takes the blame until there's a problem, then pretend to be concerned and have a big public "plan" to fix it to try to look like the savior.
This subway crisis and others like it is the end result of the cycle of "Crisis Management". We have politicians who "never let a good crisis go to waste", a media which practically requires a constant state of crisis somewhere to attract meaningful attention (and thus ad-revenue) and the final result is that society can barely focus on whatever actively burning crisis is at hand. Future simmering problems are ignored and actively shortchanged, because the political class doesn't care (trains running on time doesn't get you votes, only smearing your political opponents messes do!). The media class cannibalized itself long ago, and no longer has enough revenue to run both a major online presence and deep investigative reporting that could surface future problems in advance. Citizens rightly distrust both as being myopic rent-seeking classes - and they are! Sadly, this mistrust does nothing to fix either situation, only giving both new excuses for why everything is broken.
What's worse is that perpetual firefighting is 10-100x more expensive than fixing a crisis in advance. Perpetual "Crisis Management" is a large driver of the cost disease that infects many industries, like infrastructure and healthcare. Why will "fixing" the subway cost billion of dollars? Because NYC eagerly let the technical debt and maintenance build up in exchange for it not being $poitician's problem yesterday. There was no incentive to improve and fix the situation in advance. There still isn't. So whatever Cumuo does here, don't worry - we'll be back again for a repeat next decade.
What's worse is that perpetual firefighting is 10-100x more expensive than fixing a crisis in advance. Perpetual "Crisis Management" is a large driver of the cost disease that infects many industries, like infrastructure and healthcare. Why will "fixing" the subway cost billion of dollars? Because NYC eagerly let the technical debt and maintenance build up in exchange for it not being $poitician's problem yesterday. There was no incentive to improve and fix the situation in advance. There still isn't. So whatever Cumuo does here, don't worry - we'll be back again for a repeat next decade.
Like the programmer anecdote that's made the HN rounds recently: Being a crummy programmer who regularly saves the day (because the system is crummy and constantly needs saving) will get you more esteem/money/visibility than being a good programmer who's systems hum along with no fuss.
Why do it right the first time and only get one celebration? Just push your first cut to prod then start planning a deprecation / upgrade / migration cycle. Repeat until you get promoted to a management role. Repeat until you're rich enough to retire early or dead.
NJTransit and Subways failing at the same time makes it really hard for commuters especially ones with families and kids who need to be picked up and dropped at day care and schools. The lack of leadership and vision are making Big Apple into a third world country. What good is it for customers to have free wifi on Streets but failing subways.
Politicians do not operate on the principal of what is good for customers. They operate on whether or not doing something increases their odds of reelection, or in the case of term limits whether an action will make themselves or their successor look good.
In the cases you described, putting a wifi mesh net topside is something that can be done in weeks. Revamping a hundred year old subway that woefully needs tens of billions of dollars of renovations that would probably take a decade to complete raise taxes while you are in office while your successor 2 terms later reaps the rewards.
If they even get that far - the tragedy of ignorant voters is how long term vision doesn't get anyone votes. If you raise taxes now, you probably won't be in office tomorrow, even if that tax raise would make every constituent you have a millionaire 5 years from now, and they would elect a replacement whose entire platform is to undo what you did, because the immediate pain is much more meaningful to them in the voting booth than the long term promise.
In the cases you described, putting a wifi mesh net topside is something that can be done in weeks. Revamping a hundred year old subway that woefully needs tens of billions of dollars of renovations that would probably take a decade to complete raise taxes while you are in office while your successor 2 terms later reaps the rewards.
If they even get that far - the tragedy of ignorant voters is how long term vision doesn't get anyone votes. If you raise taxes now, you probably won't be in office tomorrow, even if that tax raise would make every constituent you have a millionaire 5 years from now, and they would elect a replacement whose entire platform is to undo what you did, because the immediate pain is much more meaningful to them in the voting booth than the long term promise.
I commute in from Jersey and I have booked a few hotel stays since the derailments because I would have to leave the house well before 7 to guarantee making it in by 9.
Is your company paying?
Classic 'Starve the beast' politics.
Don't fund the public service and it fails.
The first paragraph is about 'entrepenuers' lining up to fix the subway...
There's going to be contracts.and aton of money to be made
Don't fund the public service and it fails.
The first paragraph is about 'entrepenuers' lining up to fix the subway...
There's going to be contracts.and aton of money to be made
This article describes the challenges faced by the NYC subway system in a fascinating way: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-d...
I hope California is taking notes.
Clearly Illinois wasn't: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/illinois-...
I don't know, the CTA seems to be functioning okay.
The CTA/RTA is highly corrupt. Unsurprising for Chicago. The usual kind of stuff: patronage hiring, pension shenanigans. A former executive director stepped in front of a Metra train on the day he was going to be fired for taking $475,000 of unapproved vacation pay.
At least the trains are mostly working, unlike NYC or DC. Corruption coupled with performance is more palatable than corruption that leads to chaos.
If the transit system were privately owned, would it be in better condition?
No chance. The deferred maintenance would be even worse, operators would come and go rebranding everything every few years, they'd all point fingers at each other when something went wrong... ugh.
Look at the mess the UK rail system is in - absurdly high ticket prices, confusing interconnections, bad service, finger pointing, bad maintenance, it's a mess.
The original railways were privately owned and apparently worked pretty well but it is a different world now. Minimal costs trump all else and that's no way to run a city's mass transit system. They will never be profitable enterprises, they are a public service, for the good of the public and the city itself.
Look at the mess the UK rail system is in - absurdly high ticket prices, confusing interconnections, bad service, finger pointing, bad maintenance, it's a mess.
The original railways were privately owned and apparently worked pretty well but it is a different world now. Minimal costs trump all else and that's no way to run a city's mass transit system. They will never be profitable enterprises, they are a public service, for the good of the public and the city itself.
You lead with "no chance", and subsequently acknowledge that the NYC subways used to be privately owned, and that it worked well.
Ever wonder why airplanes had wifi before the subway? Private vs public.
Ever compare the privately owned NYC ferries (fully open to the public) with the publicly owned ferries?
Ever wonder why airplanes had wifi before the subway? Private vs public.
Ever compare the privately owned NYC ferries (fully open to the public) with the publicly owned ferries?
I've spent a single day in NYC all my life so have no idea.
I'm wondering if ferries are easier to run as there is less infrastructure. There are the equivalent of stations and maintenance depots, but not rails. I don't know who owns the ferry infrastructure or if it is shared.
If you privatised the trains, would the different operators share tracks and stations? If so who would own and maintain them? My guess is the operators would baulk at the idea of maintaining ANY infrastructure and just want to run trains leased from the govt, over a system maintained by the govt, who now has less revenue from the fares.
In NSW our railway barely if never got to operational status under private ownership. The govt took it over immediately and it has been priceless for the state ever since. But of course bean counters have been complaining about it for decades now. I think there has been privatisation stuff going on for a while like the airport line. They were also trying to disentangle the various routes so they could sell them off, but that is hard because they didn't need to be planned that way when built.
It seems to me like a city's metro system is too important to leave in the hands of private operators whose only reason to exist is to make a profit and that will bail out the second things are not worth its time and money. If the metro chokes, so does the city.
I'm wondering if ferries are easier to run as there is less infrastructure. There are the equivalent of stations and maintenance depots, but not rails. I don't know who owns the ferry infrastructure or if it is shared.
If you privatised the trains, would the different operators share tracks and stations? If so who would own and maintain them? My guess is the operators would baulk at the idea of maintaining ANY infrastructure and just want to run trains leased from the govt, over a system maintained by the govt, who now has less revenue from the fares.
In NSW our railway barely if never got to operational status under private ownership. The govt took it over immediately and it has been priceless for the state ever since. But of course bean counters have been complaining about it for decades now. I think there has been privatisation stuff going on for a while like the airport line. They were also trying to disentangle the various routes so they could sell them off, but that is hard because they didn't need to be planned that way when built.
It seems to me like a city's metro system is too important to leave in the hands of private operators whose only reason to exist is to make a profit and that will bail out the second things are not worth its time and money. If the metro chokes, so does the city.
Who owns and builds airports? Private airlines run flights out of these.
Who owns and builds roads and gas stations? Private bus companies, taxis, rideshares, chauffeurs, and shipping companies run on these.
Who owns ports? Private cruise lines, ferries, and shipping companies run ships out of these.
Who owns freight rail and associated stations? Private freight and logistics companies move products over these.
Elsewhere in this thread are comments about Tokyo's private subway companies (three of them).
Who owns and builds roads and gas stations? Private bus companies, taxis, rideshares, chauffeurs, and shipping companies run on these.
Who owns ports? Private cruise lines, ferries, and shipping companies run ships out of these.
Who owns freight rail and associated stations? Private freight and logistics companies move products over these.
Elsewhere in this thread are comments about Tokyo's private subway companies (three of them).
Are you proposing that public money build the rail lines, and private companies operate the trains on those lines?
Airports (and baseball stadiums) are built with public money because of competition between municipalities. They are primarily funded by the people who use them though.
Gas stations are private enterprises.
Airports (and baseball stadiums) are built with public money because of competition between municipalities. They are primarily funded by the people who use them though.
Gas stations are private enterprises.
I propose nothing, just ask questions that the parent of my post seems to imply the answer should be no to.
> “I made eye contact with a couple of people, and they made a sad face,” she said. “I guess it was a nice human moment.”
And to think they claim living in NY is dehumanizing!
Yeah, it's hard to imagine the amount of money it would take me to live there.
And to think they claim living in NY is dehumanizing!
Yeah, it's hard to imagine the amount of money it would take me to live there.
I dunno, having lived across the US (the southeast, NYC, Colorado, Bay Area, Oregon, Washington), NYC is far from the unfriendliest city. I see way more open hostility in California, which somehow has a rep for being laid back.
I wonder if the subway actually increases the perceived friendliness? Everyone that has driven a car has likely experienced road rage in one form or another.
I love living in NYC. Have you actually spent any appreciable amount of time here? You're reading a lot into a joke in an news article.
I did not realize he legislated banks to make Affirmative Action (Subprime) loans as HUD Sectary during President Bill Clinton's administration. I did not realize he was the brother of CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo.