4 ms·

This is sad. NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system and it's rotted into disrepair. I'm all for limiting rid

This is sad. NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system and it's rotted into disrepair. I'm all for limiting rid share vehicles and better wages for drivers, but they need to dump a shit ton of time and money into the rail system, both the subway and intercity. Fix Penn Station, and get the tracks up to spec! That should be the #1 priority for city transport infrastructure.

lqdc13 8y ago
There is lots of corruption and bureaucracy and lawsuit-avoidance driven construction. Right now the cost of constructing subway stations in NYC is the highest in the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
moorhosj 8y ago
==NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system== Interested to hear what the other cities are. Chicago? San Fran?
- djstein 8y ago
  Chicago and DC
  - rhino369 8y ago
    DC Metro is having issues on par with NYC's. The cause is likely the same; improper maintenance.
    - stevehawk 8y ago
      But they are also heavily investing in expanding it (recently opened silver line) . Dc is banking heavily on the future of that rail where NYC seems to have quit caring entirely.
- gamegoblin 8y ago
  Boston's system is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA_Subway
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    It's cleaner than anything in Silicon Valley and less crowded than NYC. Timeliness and reliability are quite lacking though. It desperately needs rolling stock that wasn't due to be EoL'd a decade ago and it needs proper management which the thinly veiled jobs program known as the MBTA doesn't seem to be able to provide. edit: apparently SF is not representative of public transit in other cities in California.
    - tomjakubowski 8y ago
      Assuming you mean California, LA's Metro rail is no dirtier than Boston's MBTA rail. Sometimes it smells a little funky, but so do the streets -- Boston doesn't have quite the homeless population of Los Angeles.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        LA’s metro rail is definitely dirtier than the MBTA, and while you’re right that LA faces more challenges with homeless people, there is still a meaningful presence of homelessness on the MBTA, combined with the fact that it’s a much larger rail network in terms of track and ridership and that it has to operate even during horrible winter conditions, I’d say there is a marked step up from LA metro rail to the MBTA in overall quality. I’ve lived in both downtown LA and Cambridge, and it’s really difficult to conduct life in LA relying primarily on local rail options. Whereas in metro Boston, it’s much easier to live car-free than to own a car. The subway and commuter rail are just a superior way to get around 99% of the time. I mean, it’s not the same degree of car-obsolescence as New York, but it’s much closer to New York in that regard than it is to the situation in LA.
- discodave 8y ago
  DC
- lev99 8y ago
  DC proper.
tribune 8y ago
I don't disagree with you but the reason for this shutdown is a much-needed reconstruction of the tunnel under the East River (it was damaged during Hurricane Sandy) along with station upgrades at all the Manhattan stops. This is investment in the city's rail infrastructure. Sure, it will suck for 2019-2020 but come 2025 New Yorkers will be glad it happened.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  That's what they said about the big dig. Now that it's all said and done it's still the go to example of a boondoggle public works project that turned into a money fountain for anyone who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy in government. (In the project's defense, it did increase throughput and alleviate some traffic problems on surface streets which was the goal.) The north/south station rail connector that was supposed to be thrown in never even happened which the city has been kicking itself over for years. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Of course when they do hatch you'll wish you had twice as many eggs to start with. Boston sure wishes it has the inner belt along with all the various rail projects it's forgone over the years.
hansthehorse 8y ago
Born and raised in Manhattan back when normal people could actually live there. I don't see how the NYC subway system could be other than a complete wreck given their insistence on running a 24/7 service. Shut down the system from midnight to 5am with a corresponding increase in bus service during that time.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  In Manhattan they're mostly running a 4-track system, so they can easily shut down half the tracks for maintenance while maintaining 24/7 service. I think they've got other problems. For alternative examples: BART is not 24/7, and possibly sucks even more than MTA. CTA's 2 main lines are 24/7, but it's nearly 100% a 2-track system, and its biggest problem (IMO, anyway) is that the arrangement of seats inside the cars is so very desperately bonehaded.
cryptonector 8y ago
Did you know that the NYC subway system was originally built and operated by two private companies that competed with each other? Guess how that came to no longer be the case. (The city froze their rates until they were no longer able to improve services, then the city took them over.)
- kalleboo 8y ago
  And for comparison, in the greater Tokyo area there are like 10 different competing train companies (although of the largest 3, one was privatized out of the government, one is privatized but government-owned, and one is government-run) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tokyo_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tokyo_transit
- etiennemarcel 8y ago
  It was the same in Paris (CMP and Nord-Sud), until the subway was nationalized after the war. And yet there are still major investments... You could say the same for the national railway network, it's a state company and it didn't prevent investments and improvements (high speed trains).
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    The second avenue line was a "major investment". It was also probably [many] decades after any private company might have done it. When one have lived for decades with the same nationalized system, one can't imagine what the alternative might be like. But we know from other industries. E.g., telecoms. The UK nationalized its telephone industry in 1912(!). The rest of the world basically followed suit (the U.S. didn't, but we gave AT&T a monopoly that tended to limit innovation in the same sort of way), then in the 90s the whole world privatized and/or deregulated telecoms and... wow, what a boom resulted! And yet very few people who are aware of that case will even think of applying the same approach to other typically-nationalized industries. It's always interesting to see what gets nationalized. It seems to be the biggest, most notable, locally culturally valued industry that the relevant politicians have the power to nationalize. National governments tend nationalize big things, like telecoms, utilities, steel manufacturing, etc. In the U.S. the Federal government has not had the ability / constitutional power to do this (see the Steel Cases from 1947), the States have and have had the constitutional power, but by dint of having so many of them in competition with each other, they've mostly been unable to use it, which leaves: the cities. In the U.S. every city has a "nationalized" public transit system. But in many parts of the world things like city buses are entirely private sector industries (e.g., in Buenos Aires, which has an incredibly vast private bus network). That might be surprising, since in Argentina just about everything of note has been nationalized at times. It makes sense though: Argentina has a strong central government, and weak local governments, so the central government nationalizes things of national importance, and the local governments not so much.

lqdc13 8y ago

There is lots of corruption and bureaucracy and lawsuit-avoidance driven construction. Right now the cost of constructing subway stations in NYC is the highest in the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

moorhosj 8y ago

==NYC is one of the few (like 2, maybe 3) America cities with an actual usable rail system== Interested to hear what the other cities are. Chicago? San Fran?

djstein 8y ago
Chicago and DC
- rhino369 8y ago
  DC Metro is having issues on par with NYC's. The cause is likely the same; improper maintenance.
  - stevehawk 8y ago
    But they are also heavily investing in expanding it (recently opened silver line) . Dc is banking heavily on the future of that rail where NYC seems to have quit caring entirely.
gamegoblin 8y ago
Boston's system is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTA_Subway
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's cleaner than anything in Silicon Valley and less crowded than NYC. Timeliness and reliability are quite lacking though. It desperately needs rolling stock that wasn't due to be EoL'd a decade ago and it needs proper management which the thinly veiled jobs program known as the MBTA doesn't seem to be able to provide. edit: apparently SF is not representative of public transit in other cities in California.
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    Assuming you mean California, LA's Metro rail is no dirtier than Boston's MBTA rail. Sometimes it smells a little funky, but so do the streets -- Boston doesn't have quite the homeless population of Los Angeles.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      LA’s metro rail is definitely dirtier than the MBTA, and while you’re right that LA faces more challenges with homeless people, there is still a meaningful presence of homelessness on the MBTA, combined with the fact that it’s a much larger rail network in terms of track and ridership and that it has to operate even during horrible winter conditions, I’d say there is a marked step up from LA metro rail to the MBTA in overall quality. I’ve lived in both downtown LA and Cambridge, and it’s really difficult to conduct life in LA relying primarily on local rail options. Whereas in metro Boston, it’s much easier to live car-free than to own a car. The subway and commuter rail are just a superior way to get around 99% of the time. I mean, it’s not the same degree of car-obsolescence as New York, but it’s much closer to New York in that regard than it is to the situation in LA.
discodave 8y ago
DC
lev99 8y ago
DC proper.

tribune 8y ago

I don't disagree with you but the reason for this shutdown is a much-needed reconstruction of the tunnel under the East River (it was damaged during Hurricane Sandy) along with station upgrades at all the Manhattan stops. This is investment in the city's rail infrastructure. Sure, it will suck for 2019-2020 but come 2025 New Yorkers will be glad it happened.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
That's what they said about the big dig. Now that it's all said and done it's still the go to example of a boondoggle public works project that turned into a money fountain for anyone who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy in government. (In the project's defense, it did increase throughput and alleviate some traffic problems on surface streets which was the goal.) The north/south station rail connector that was supposed to be thrown in never even happened which the city has been kicking itself over for years. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Of course when they do hatch you'll wish you had twice as many eggs to start with. Boston sure wishes it has the inner belt along with all the various rail projects it's forgone over the years.

hansthehorse 8y ago

Born and raised in Manhattan back when normal people could actually live there. I don't see how the NYC subway system could be other than a complete wreck given their insistence on running a 24/7 service. Shut down the system from midnight to 5am with a corresponding increase in bus service during that time.

bunderbunder 8y ago
In Manhattan they're mostly running a 4-track system, so they can easily shut down half the tracks for maintenance while maintaining 24/7 service. I think they've got other problems. For alternative examples: BART is not 24/7, and possibly sucks even more than MTA. CTA's 2 main lines are 24/7, but it's nearly 100% a 2-track system, and its biggest problem (IMO, anyway) is that the arrangement of seats inside the cars is so very desperately bonehaded.

cryptonector 8y ago

Did you know that the NYC subway system was originally built and operated by two private companies that competed with each other? Guess how that came to no longer be the case. (The city froze their rates until they were no longer able to improve services, then the city took them over.)

kalleboo 8y ago
And for comparison, in the greater Tokyo area there are like 10 different competing train companies (although of the largest 3, one was privatized out of the government, one is privatized but government-owned, and one is government-run) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tokyo_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tokyo_transit
etiennemarcel 8y ago
It was the same in Paris (CMP and Nord-Sud), until the subway was nationalized after the war. And yet there are still major investments... You could say the same for the national railway network, it's a state company and it didn't prevent investments and improvements (high speed trains).
- cryptonector 8y ago
  The second avenue line was a "major investment". It was also probably [many] decades after any private company might have done it. When one have lived for decades with the same nationalized system, one can't imagine what the alternative might be like. But we know from other industries. E.g., telecoms. The UK nationalized its telephone industry in 1912(!). The rest of the world basically followed suit (the U.S. didn't, but we gave AT&T a monopoly that tended to limit innovation in the same sort of way), then in the 90s the whole world privatized and/or deregulated telecoms and... wow, what a boom resulted! And yet very few people who are aware of that case will even think of applying the same approach to other typically-nationalized industries. It's always interesting to see what gets nationalized. It seems to be the biggest, most notable, locally culturally valued industry that the relevant politicians have the power to nationalize. National governments tend nationalize big things, like telecoms, utilities, steel manufacturing, etc. In the U.S. the Federal government has not had the ability / constitutional power to do this (see the Steel Cases from 1947), the States have and have had the constitutional power, but by dint of having so many of them in competition with each other, they've mostly been unable to use it, which leaves: the cities. In the U.S. every city has a "nationalized" public transit system. But in many parts of the world things like city buses are entirely private sector industries (e.g., in Buenos Aires, which has an incredibly vast private bus network). That might be surprising, since in Argentina just about everything of note has been nationalized at times. It makes sense though: Argentina has a strong central government, and weak local governments, so the central government nationalizes things of national importance, and the local governments not so much.