5 ms·

The short answer is "they don't know any better". And that's because they have never seen "the other" option in a fully functioning system.

ng12 8y ago
I mean NYC is not really a secret. The problem is a mental association between big city subway systems and societal problems that plague big cities.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  The US is big enough that most folks away from the northeast have never been there.
  - bdhess 8y ago
    Also, plenty of folks visit NYC without using the subway.
    - WorldMaker 8y ago
      I remember I had two tourist books for my HS NYC trip, and one recommended never taking the subway ("because its mostly for locals, and hard and confusing" or something like that), and the other basically didn't mention it at all. Filling a Metro card was like discovering a secret power in how much of the city I was able to see in a short timespan. One of my favorite stories from that trip was getting a call from my father that he got last minute Broadway tickets for us in a couple hours, while I was on the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty ferry. When he heard where I was on the map he was concerned I might not make it to dinner/the show on time, and I knew I had the timing on my side with the Subway to get there right on time. (And I did.)
      - ng12 8y ago
        Sounds like you founds books sponsored by the TLC :)
- closeparen 8y ago
  NYC public transit is not "fully functioning" anymore.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    This is a favorite topic of conversation amongst New Yorkers, but, while there are no doubt real problems, New York's subway system is still an enormous benefit to residents and especially remarkable by U.S. standards.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      This is certainly true, but I think it mistakes the concern? If the NYC subway system had always been like it is now, and would stay this way indefinitely, it would still be worth having. It would be sweaty and crowded and unreliable for getting to work right on time, but it would work well off-peak and decrease congestion admirably. The heatstroke and crashes and fires would be objectionable, but it's probably still safer per trip than the sidewalks. But it used to be better, and the city shaped itself around that, and all serious estimates say it's going to get even worse. If picked your apartment to suit your paycheck and give you a 30 minute commute by subway, and that suddenly goes up to 90 minutes (or to "track fire, everybody out"), you might well be worse off than if you'd never had the option in the first place. NYC has fewer miles of subway than it did after WWII. On time rates are the worst of any major city in the world, and have been steadily falling for every single line in the city, outages have risen, injuries have risen, maintenance spending fell while budget rose. There's no plausible budget plan to fix most of that. Meanwhile, the North River tunnels have a lifespan of "20 years or until the next hurricane", and the most optimistic plans for fixing that require either 10+ years of construction and several billion in future funding, or a 50% capacity reduction for years. The issue isn't that the subway is expensive and slow. It's that the city is reliant on the subway, but there doesn't appear to be any realistic plan for halting the decline or preventing crisis if it continues.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
dv_dt 8y ago
As a tourist, my favorite was visiting cities that had a weeklong any-public-transit type pass. Such a nice way to explore an area.
- close04 8y ago
  Many people think the equivalent of the "consumerism" promoted by older generations is the "experiences consumerism" (travelling) of the younger ones. I would say with the one huge difference that travelling allows you to see things in action that you either never thought possible, or feasible. That maybe you always disconsidered or perhaps never even crossed your mind. And it allows you to make better choices when you come back home. For example seeing so many successful public transport systems in other parts of the world could not only make you reconsider you opinion on this in general but even come up with an idea that you can actually get behind for your home city.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Public transportation between hotels and tourist destinations is usually pretty good, even when a city’s transit system is a complete mess. Spending big on prestige transit projects just for tourists is such a common pathology, it’s become cliche. A tourism experience tells you nothing about what public transit is like for people who live in middle class neighborhoods and work in normal offices.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      I think it tells you a little, as it's fairly apparent the split between tourists and locals. Since I often ended up in places off-season, for me it was mostly me and locals. But, I could certainly understand if some times of year the traffic being much larger and more tourists.
    - close04 8y ago
      A "tourism experience" can be whatever you want it to be. If it's a cliche maybe you're doing it wrong. As a tourist I always enjoy getting the "local" experience, I take the regular buses or the subway, I visit the "regular" parts of the city, sometimes I take the bus and ride it to the end of the line and back. I take long walks through residential neighborhoods that are never on any tourist map to see how those people live and organize things. I walk on side streets to see what's behind the curtains of the touristic city. I go off the beaten path because that's where I find the most interesting things. The one thing I try to avoid is testing the rush hour traffic as a driver. This doesn't mean I don't pay attention to see what that city/country has done about it and how they're tackling it. Many people just hop on the tourist bus, go straight from the hotel to visit the handful of famous attractions and call it a vacation. Good for them I guess, although I find that just marginally better than Google Street View. Any experience can be a let down or a cliche if that's what you planned and executed. You get to experience more or less exactly what you bargained for.

ng12 8y ago

I mean NYC is not really a secret. The problem is a mental association between big city subway systems and societal problems that plague big cities.

mixmastamyk 8y ago
The US is big enough that most folks away from the northeast have never been there.
- bdhess 8y ago
  Also, plenty of folks visit NYC without using the subway.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    I remember I had two tourist books for my HS NYC trip, and one recommended never taking the subway ("because its mostly for locals, and hard and confusing" or something like that), and the other basically didn't mention it at all. Filling a Metro card was like discovering a secret power in how much of the city I was able to see in a short timespan. One of my favorite stories from that trip was getting a call from my father that he got last minute Broadway tickets for us in a couple hours, while I was on the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty ferry. When he heard where I was on the map he was concerned I might not make it to dinner/the show on time, and I knew I had the timing on my side with the Subway to get there right on time. (And I did.)
    - ng12 8y ago
      Sounds like you founds books sponsored by the TLC :)
closeparen 8y ago
NYC public transit is not "fully functioning" anymore.
- dionidium 8y ago
  This is a favorite topic of conversation amongst New Yorkers, but, while there are no doubt real problems, New York's subway system is still an enormous benefit to residents and especially remarkable by U.S. standards.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    This is certainly true, but I think it mistakes the concern? If the NYC subway system had always been like it is now, and would stay this way indefinitely, it would still be worth having. It would be sweaty and crowded and unreliable for getting to work right on time, but it would work well off-peak and decrease congestion admirably. The heatstroke and crashes and fires would be objectionable, but it's probably still safer per trip than the sidewalks. But it used to be better, and the city shaped itself around that, and all serious estimates say it's going to get even worse. If picked your apartment to suit your paycheck and give you a 30 minute commute by subway, and that suddenly goes up to 90 minutes (or to "track fire, everybody out"), you might well be worse off than if you'd never had the option in the first place. NYC has fewer miles of subway than it did after WWII. On time rates are the worst of any major city in the world, and have been steadily falling for every single line in the city, outages have risen, injuries have risen, maintenance spending fell while budget rose. There's no plausible budget plan to fix most of that. Meanwhile, the North River tunnels have a lifespan of "20 years or until the next hurricane", and the most optimistic plans for fixing that require either 10+ years of construction and several billion in future funding, or a 50% capacity reduction for years. The issue isn't that the subway is expensive and slow. It's that the city is reliant on the subway, but there doesn't appear to be any realistic plan for halting the decline or preventing crisis if it continues.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

dv_dt 8y ago

As a tourist, my favorite was visiting cities that had a weeklong any-public-transit type pass. Such a nice way to explore an area.

close04 8y ago
Many people think the equivalent of the "consumerism" promoted by older generations is the "experiences consumerism" (travelling) of the younger ones. I would say with the one huge difference that travelling allows you to see things in action that you either never thought possible, or feasible. That maybe you always disconsidered or perhaps never even crossed your mind. And it allows you to make better choices when you come back home. For example seeing so many successful public transport systems in other parts of the world could not only make you reconsider you opinion on this in general but even come up with an idea that you can actually get behind for your home city.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Public transportation between hotels and tourist destinations is usually pretty good, even when a city’s transit system is a complete mess. Spending big on prestige transit projects just for tourists is such a common pathology, it’s become cliche. A tourism experience tells you nothing about what public transit is like for people who live in middle class neighborhoods and work in normal offices.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    I think it tells you a little, as it's fairly apparent the split between tourists and locals. Since I often ended up in places off-season, for me it was mostly me and locals. But, I could certainly understand if some times of year the traffic being much larger and more tourists.
  - close04 8y ago
    A "tourism experience" can be whatever you want it to be. If it's a cliche maybe you're doing it wrong. As a tourist I always enjoy getting the "local" experience, I take the regular buses or the subway, I visit the "regular" parts of the city, sometimes I take the bus and ride it to the end of the line and back. I take long walks through residential neighborhoods that are never on any tourist map to see how those people live and organize things. I walk on side streets to see what's behind the curtains of the touristic city. I go off the beaten path because that's where I find the most interesting things. The one thing I try to avoid is testing the rush hour traffic as a driver. This doesn't mean I don't pay attention to see what that city/country has done about it and how they're tackling it. Many people just hop on the tourist bus, go straight from the hotel to visit the handful of famous attractions and call it a vacation. Good for them I guess, although I find that just marginally better than Google Street View. Any experience can be a let down or a cliche if that's what you planned and executed. You get to experience more or less exactly what you bargained for.