7 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

justicezyx 9y ago
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.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > 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.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    > 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.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > 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).
      - justicezyx 9y ago
        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.
        chimeracoder 9y ago
        > 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.
- apostacy 9y ago
  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.
tooltalk 9y ago
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.
Larrikin 9y ago
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.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > 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.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > NYC is a 24-hour city in a way that cities like London are not. I highly doubt that’s true.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > 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.
rayiner 9y ago
> 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.
- apostacy 9y ago
  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.

justicezyx 9y ago

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.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> 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.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  > 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.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > 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).
    - justicezyx 9y ago
      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.
      - chimeracoder 9y ago
        > 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.
apostacy 9y ago
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.

tooltalk 9y ago

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.

Larrikin 9y ago

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.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> 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.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > NYC is a 24-hour city in a way that cities like London are not. I highly doubt that’s true.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > 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.

rayiner 9y ago

> 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.

apostacy 9y ago
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.