3 ms·

Not necessarily disagreeing, but it's important to point out that fixing/upgrading the system comes from the capital budget, and the promises you're describing

Not necessarily disagreeing, but it's important to point out that fixing/upgrading the system comes from the capital budget, and the promises you're describing are paid out of the operating budget. The debt service for the former, is earmarked, by law, from the latter, which clocks in at 16% according to recent figures[0]. And we might have larger capital allocations if there weren't the ongoing and very generous salary scales, heavy use of overtime, and pension obligations. The question I have is, why were things like the Hudson Yards station, work on the perpetually delayed 2nd Avenue subway, Fulton St. station renovation prioritized over the core signal and preexisting aging track infrastructure? [0]http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/MTA%202017%20Adopted%20Budget%20February%20Financial%20Plan%202017-2020.pdf http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/MTA%202017%20Adopted%20Bu... (page II-1)

gsnedders 9y ago
> The question I have is, why were things like the Hudson Yards station, work on the perpetually delayed 2nd Avenue subway, Fulton St. station renovation prioritized over the core signal and preexisting aging track infrastructure? Which gets votes? Renewing existing infrastructure is something nobody understands.
- nine_k 9y ago
  "Renewing existing infrastructure" as in "not canceling L train", or "R trains running without problems", etc? That could get some votes. BTW 2nd avenue subway should be seen as "less crowded green line trains", which matched popular demand rather well, and it did work, to my mind.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > "Renewing existing infrastructure" as in "not canceling L train", or "R trains running without problems", etc? That could get some votes. But people expect it to keep working as it does today, as far as I can tell. It's about expectations, not realism.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    The crowding on the Lexington Ave. lines is partly due to Metro-North commuters at 125th St. and Grand Central -- the 2nd Ave. subway does absolutely nothing to help with that, because the extension into East Harlem was not funded.
jcranmer 9y ago
> The question I have is, why were things like the Hudson Yards station, work on the perpetually delayed 2nd Avenue subway, Fulton St. station renovation prioritized over the core signal and preexisting aging track infrastructure? Politicians love being able to do a big ribbon-cutting ceremony for adding something new. At the very least, it's easier to point to a new subway line and say "I helped make that possible" than it is to do that for improved maintenance of infrastructure.
betterunix2 9y ago
As long as the existing system is fully funded and properly maintained, there is no pressing need to replace anything. The original signal system worked fine for a century and could continue working fine for another century, as long as maintenance is being done. I would suggest that what the system needs more than the new signal system is expansion; there were actually more transit lines the last time the system had to handle this many passengers. One of the things that 2nd Ave. subway does -- in a small but meaningful way -- is increase the number of trains that can operate in Midtown during peak hours, because it creates a new branch line for trains to terminate on (capacity at terminals is a limiting factor in some cases; this is why 71st-Continental is used as a terminal, despite the fact that the 4-track line continues to 179th St., and why several E trains terminate at 179th or Kew Gardens during peak hours.). The 2nd Ave. subway would also have helped to reduce crowding on the Lexington Ave. line if it had been built to 125th St., where there is a Metro-North station. That is an unfunded plan at the moment, and there would likely be opposition from the wealthy Upper East Side residents to such an extension (not just the extra crowding, but also the poorer people who live in East Harlem taking the train).
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  As long as the existing system is fully funded and properly maintained, there is no pressing need to replace anything. The original signal system worked fine for a century and could continue working fine for another century, as long as maintenance is being done I'm not saying you're definitively wrong, because I don't know from where you get your information, but that is simply not what I've heard from every other source. What I've read is that the signal system and the track structure is antiquated[0], equipment dating almost a century old, which is the cause of most delays and prevents safe running of trains at more frequent intervals, and that certain components of the track are so old that no one manufactures their replacements anymore, so the agency cannibalizes out of commission lines for parts. If you've got something to link that suggests otherwise, I'd be glad to read it and expand my horizons. I don't deny that increasing track coverage with new lines is very important too. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/new-york-subway-signals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
gerbilly 9y ago
>it's important to point out that fixing/upgrading the system comes from the capital budget, and the promises you're describing are paid out of the operating budget Who cares what budget it comes from? It's just money in the end.

gsnedders 9y ago

nine_k 9y ago
"Renewing existing infrastructure" as in "not canceling L train", or "R trains running without problems", etc? That could get some votes. BTW 2nd avenue subway should be seen as "less crowded green line trains", which matched popular demand rather well, and it did work, to my mind.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > "Renewing existing infrastructure" as in "not canceling L train", or "R trains running without problems", etc? That could get some votes. But people expect it to keep working as it does today, as far as I can tell. It's about expectations, not realism.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  The crowding on the Lexington Ave. lines is partly due to Metro-North commuters at 125th St. and Grand Central -- the 2nd Ave. subway does absolutely nothing to help with that, because the extension into East Harlem was not funded.

jcranmer 9y ago

> The question I have is, why were things like the Hudson Yards station, work on the perpetually delayed 2nd Avenue subway, Fulton St. station renovation prioritized over the core signal and preexisting aging track infrastructure? Politicians love being able to do a big ribbon-cutting ceremony for adding something new. At the very least, it's easier to point to a new subway line and say "I helped make that possible" than it is to do that for improved maintenance of infrastructure.

betterunix2 9y ago

As long as the existing system is fully funded and properly maintained, there is no pressing need to replace anything. The original signal system worked fine for a century and could continue working fine for another century, as long as maintenance is being done. I would suggest that what the system needs more than the new signal system is expansion; there were actually more transit lines the last time the system had to handle this many passengers. One of the things that 2nd Ave. subway does -- in a small but meaningful way -- is increase the number of trains that can operate in Midtown during peak hours, because it creates a new branch line for trains to terminate on (capacity at terminals is a limiting factor in some cases; this is why 71st-Continental is used as a terminal, despite the fact that the 4-track line continues to 179th St., and why several E trains terminate at 179th or Kew Gardens during peak hours.). The 2nd Ave. subway would also have helped to reduce crowding on the Lexington Ave. line if it had been built to 125th St., where there is a Metro-North station. That is an unfunded plan at the moment, and there would likely be opposition from the wealthy Upper East Side residents to such an extension (not just the extra crowding, but also the poorer people who live in East Harlem taking the train).

lr4444lr 9y ago
As long as the existing system is fully funded and properly maintained, there is no pressing need to replace anything. The original signal system worked fine for a century and could continue working fine for another century, as long as maintenance is being done I'm not saying you're definitively wrong, because I don't know from where you get your information, but that is simply not what I've heard from every other source. What I've read is that the signal system and the track structure is antiquated[0], equipment dating almost a century old, which is the cause of most delays and prevents safe running of trains at more frequent intervals, and that certain components of the track are so old that no one manufactures their replacements anymore, so the agency cannibalizes out of commission lines for parts. If you've got something to link that suggests otherwise, I'd be glad to read it and expand my horizons. I don't deny that increasing track coverage with new lines is very important too. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/new-york-subway-signals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

gerbilly 9y ago

>it's important to point out that fixing/upgrading the system comes from the capital budget, and the promises you're describing are paid out of the operating budget Who cares what budget it comes from? It's just money in the end.