4 ms·

Yeah it's funny. Anecdotally, I think most people would agree that other countries, particularly Western European ones, seem to just care more about transportat

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.

CydeWeys 9y ago
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.
- caf 9y ago
  New York City's population is what, half of New York State? How do NYC concerns not dominate state politics?
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    They don't have half the legislative districts.
    - caf 9y ago
      Ahh, rural malapportionment. Introducing one-vote-one-value seems a bit less extreme than secession, but maybe that's just an ambit claim.
    - somecontext 9y ago
      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.
- zanny 9y ago
  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.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    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.
    - zanny 9y ago
      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.
- ant6n 9y ago
  > 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.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    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.

CydeWeys 9y ago

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.

caf 9y ago
New York City's population is what, half of New York State? How do NYC concerns not dominate state politics?
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  They don't have half the legislative districts.
  - caf 9y ago
    Ahh, rural malapportionment. Introducing one-vote-one-value seems a bit less extreme than secession, but maybe that's just an ambit claim.
  - somecontext 9y ago
    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.
zanny 9y ago
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.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  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.
  - zanny 9y ago
    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.
ant6n 9y ago
> 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.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  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.