4 ms·

In almost all cases I think this is a valid critique, but not against the MTA. It's one of the oldest, most complex, largest and among the ten highest daily ri

In almost all cases I think this is a valid critique, but not against the MTA. It's one of the oldest, most complex, largest and among the ten highest daily ridership. To me, it remains an absolute marvel. Of course daily riders do and will forever complain. As someone who riders infrequently and is warned about impending doom, I find myself too often pleasantly surprised.

jorblumesea 9y ago
I don't buy it, many international cities have just as big and complex systems. Trains generally run on time in Paris, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing. Seems just about everyone can do it except us. I think it's a valid question to ask, given that there's nothing exceptional about NYC compared to others in its "weight class".
- eecsninja 9y ago
  +1. I'm tired of hearing people make excuses for the NYC subway system such as age and complexity, seemingly ignorant that there's plenty of large cities in other first-world countries in the 10+ million range that do a much better job. Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. I think the actual explanation is that the NYC system was not properly maintained during the postwar period, when America focused on car transit instead. Although plenty of people complain, there is no political will to fix the problem, either at the top or at the bottom. The 24/7 operation and fixed ticket price don't help.
  - jdhn 9y ago
    >Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway. >fixed ticket price don't help I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything seen to date.
    - eecsninja 9y ago
      > An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway. What kind of "legacy costs" are you referring to, which would be higher than the cost to build the system from the ground up? > I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything seen to date. Yes, hence "lack of political will." There are too many people who benefit from some aspect of the inefficient status quo, be it outer borough commuters, late night partiers, or people living next to minor subway stations. Knowing American politics, that's why I am pessimistic that the dysfunctional status quo in the NYC subway will ever change.
      - nkozyra 9y ago
        > What kind of "legacy costs" are you referring to, which would be higher than the cost to build the system from the ground up? The costs (direct and cascading) of displacing essentially all riders for some undetermined amount of time? Tokyo had no choice but to do this.
andromeduck 9y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
amaccuish 9y ago
Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing would disagree with you there...
- Rapzid 9y ago
  Yeah, I just got back from Japan and ended up transiting four of the five busiest train stations in the world(we did not visit Yokohama). My takeaway; the US will "never" have great public transit. Other than bus issues in Kyoto due to the amount of tourists visiting shrines(205, 59, etc) it was.. eye opening. BARTs issues and costs are a joke. NYs reliability is a joke. We are not in the same league. Many countries put us to shame on public transportation.
  - amaccuish 9y ago
    Ye moving to Moscow it's been great how cheap the metro is here, and it's reliable and very rarely packed. London is good but the price of Moscow beats it. I know for the underground, all profit is reinvested, maybe that's the problem in America? Many contractors all wanting their share? At the end of the day you just have to accept that while a good public transport system looks like a big loss on paper, it brings so many benefits. Too often, excuses are made, and nothing gets done, and then the next election cycle, the same decision is made until the problem starts to appear insurmountable.
    - chrischen 9y ago
      There was a report showing that in NY the metro cost several times that of metros in other cities. So it's not just a matter of willing to spend the money, somehow the costs are much more than what they should be.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > I know for the underground, all profit is reinvested, maybe that's the problem in America? Many contractors all wanting their share? At the end of the day you just have to accept that while a good public transport system looks like a big loss on paper, it brings so many benefits. Except the Underground more or less breaks even from fare revenue (Google "farebox recovery"). NYC's MTA does not, and is heavily subsidized by tax dollars.
gsnedders 9y ago
Why does the London Underground mostly run to schedule, though, then? Because it's older, arguably as complex (especially the subsurface railway), and not that far below NYC in ridership…
- ng12 9y ago
  The biggest difference is the Tube doesn't run 24/7. You have a guaranteed maintenance cycle. Also my understanding is that European unions are less corrupt than American ones.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Ah, right; I hadn't realised that it was truly 24/7 (versus the ~5 hour gap most of the LU is shut down for). That said, some of the LU lines are now 24 hour from Friday morning till Sunday night.
  - yardie 9y ago
    Why are American unions singled out to be maligned? French unions will kidnap their boss if negotiations breakdown. American strikers have been fired upon by the local police. I get it, you’ve driven a poorly made American car once and it your blaming the union workers who built it. Not the factory managers, not the engineers who design with poor tolerances, not the accountants who choose cheap, poor material. I’ve met unionized school teachers who get fired in June and rehired in August. Why? So the schoolboard won’t have to pay mandatory cost of living increases that the union negotiated for. Better to pay teachers less every year.
- tim333 9y ago
  London has spent a lot, reflected in "London's monthly travel cost 'most expensive in world'" headlines. This article has a months travel at US$174 in London vs $118 in NY http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39806865 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39806865
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    AFAIK, London also has zero subsidy for all the TfL managed transport, and most of the (mainline) rail services receive no subsidy too.
closeparen 9y ago
Ridership remains high because New York is too dense to get around any other way.
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  I've often thought that for dense cities such as New York, and London, a Monorail would be a good solution to add to the public transit system. Picture this: Along most of the major roads fit very tall archways every few hundred feet, and place the Monorail on-top. As long as traffic below can continue unobstructed, then the two can co-exist. Additionally add direct-into-building entrances/exits at the monorail platform height (2nd or 3rd storey (US buildings called the 'ground' floor '1st', right?) ). Monorail can be driver-less, and run on clean[1] energy. It seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. -- [1] For various values of 'clean'.

jorblumesea 9y ago

I don't buy it, many international cities have just as big and complex systems. Trains generally run on time in Paris, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing. Seems just about everyone can do it except us. I think it's a valid question to ask, given that there's nothing exceptional about NYC compared to others in its "weight class".

eecsninja 9y ago
+1. I'm tired of hearing people make excuses for the NYC subway system such as age and complexity, seemingly ignorant that there's plenty of large cities in other first-world countries in the 10+ million range that do a much better job. Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. I think the actual explanation is that the NYC system was not properly maintained during the postwar period, when America focused on car transit instead. Although plenty of people complain, there is no political will to fix the problem, either at the top or at the bottom. The 24/7 operation and fixed ticket price don't help.
- jdhn 9y ago
  >Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway. >fixed ticket price don't help I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything seen to date.
  - eecsninja 9y ago
    > An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway. What kind of "legacy costs" are you referring to, which would be higher than the cost to build the system from the ground up? > I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything seen to date. Yes, hence "lack of political will." There are too many people who benefit from some aspect of the inefficient status quo, be it outer borough commuters, late night partiers, or people living next to minor subway stations. Knowing American politics, that's why I am pessimistic that the dysfunctional status quo in the NYC subway will ever change.
    - nkozyra 9y ago
      > What kind of "legacy costs" are you referring to, which would be higher than the cost to build the system from the ground up? The costs (direct and cascading) of displacing essentially all riders for some undetermined amount of time? Tokyo had no choice but to do this.

andromeduck 9y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

amaccuish 9y ago

Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing would disagree with you there...

Rapzid 9y ago
Yeah, I just got back from Japan and ended up transiting four of the five busiest train stations in the world(we did not visit Yokohama). My takeaway; the US will "never" have great public transit. Other than bus issues in Kyoto due to the amount of tourists visiting shrines(205, 59, etc) it was.. eye opening. BARTs issues and costs are a joke. NYs reliability is a joke. We are not in the same league. Many countries put us to shame on public transportation.
- amaccuish 9y ago
  Ye moving to Moscow it's been great how cheap the metro is here, and it's reliable and very rarely packed. London is good but the price of Moscow beats it. I know for the underground, all profit is reinvested, maybe that's the problem in America? Many contractors all wanting their share? At the end of the day you just have to accept that while a good public transport system looks like a big loss on paper, it brings so many benefits. Too often, excuses are made, and nothing gets done, and then the next election cycle, the same decision is made until the problem starts to appear insurmountable.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    There was a report showing that in NY the metro cost several times that of metros in other cities. So it's not just a matter of willing to spend the money, somehow the costs are much more than what they should be.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > I know for the underground, all profit is reinvested, maybe that's the problem in America? Many contractors all wanting their share? At the end of the day you just have to accept that while a good public transport system looks like a big loss on paper, it brings so many benefits. Except the Underground more or less breaks even from fare revenue (Google "farebox recovery"). NYC's MTA does not, and is heavily subsidized by tax dollars.

gsnedders 9y ago

Why does the London Underground mostly run to schedule, though, then? Because it's older, arguably as complex (especially the subsurface railway), and not that far below NYC in ridership…

ng12 9y ago
The biggest difference is the Tube doesn't run 24/7. You have a guaranteed maintenance cycle. Also my understanding is that European unions are less corrupt than American ones.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Ah, right; I hadn't realised that it was truly 24/7 (versus the ~5 hour gap most of the LU is shut down for). That said, some of the LU lines are now 24 hour from Friday morning till Sunday night.
- yardie 9y ago
  Why are American unions singled out to be maligned? French unions will kidnap their boss if negotiations breakdown. American strikers have been fired upon by the local police. I get it, you’ve driven a poorly made American car once and it your blaming the union workers who built it. Not the factory managers, not the engineers who design with poor tolerances, not the accountants who choose cheap, poor material. I’ve met unionized school teachers who get fired in June and rehired in August. Why? So the schoolboard won’t have to pay mandatory cost of living increases that the union negotiated for. Better to pay teachers less every year.
tim333 9y ago
London has spent a lot, reflected in "London's monthly travel cost 'most expensive in world'" headlines. This article has a months travel at US$174 in London vs $118 in NY http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39806865 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39806865
- gsnedders 9y ago
  AFAIK, London also has zero subsidy for all the TfL managed transport, and most of the (mainline) rail services receive no subsidy too.

closeparen 9y ago

Ridership remains high because New York is too dense to get around any other way.

Jaruzel 9y ago
I've often thought that for dense cities such as New York, and London, a Monorail would be a good solution to add to the public transit system. Picture this: Along most of the major roads fit very tall archways every few hundred feet, and place the Monorail on-top. As long as traffic below can continue unobstructed, then the two can co-exist. Additionally add direct-into-building entrances/exits at the monorail platform height (2nd or 3rd storey (US buildings called the 'ground' floor '1st', right?) ). Monorail can be driver-less, and run on clean[1] energy. It seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. -- [1] For various values of 'clean'.