3 ms·

Both things can be true. 1) It probably does cost a lot of money to increase headways, run more trains, install positive train control, and otherwise upgrade an

Both things can be true. 1) It probably does cost a lot of money to increase headways, run more trains, install positive train control, and otherwise upgrade and maintain tracks; but also 2) the MTA is a bloated, wasteful organization. I have no trouble holding both ideas in my head at once.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Both things can be true I believe both are and will be. But to what degree? If it’s billions on bloat, then we need a cost cutter at the top (in addition to new funding).
- moate 8y ago
  It's part the MTA, part the city government as a whole, and part the state government. This feels like classic "too many cooks" bureaucracy where everyone knows THEY have the right answer and everyone else at the table is conspiring against their golden plan.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I started my career working in the transportation sector, and that leaves me skeptical that it can be so simple. I've watched cost cutters at work in government transportation departments. Their MO seems to always be to cut the costs that are easy to cut so they can claim easy wins right away. Unfortunately, the costs that are easy to cut are typically things like skimping on maintenance. This leads to higher costs in the long run, but, hey, that'll take decades to come to fruition, and by then it'll be someone else's problem. In short, the state of American infrastructure today is a result of decades upon decades of mismanagement by the cost cutters. I have a hard time believing they can also be the solution. Maybe find an efficiency maven instead?
  - jandrese 8y ago
    A good example of this is the DC Metro. It was in a complete maintenance crisis a few years ago and has been playing an extremely expensive game of catchup to avoid killing any more passengers. Service quality and price have suffered while they try to rush all of the deferred maintenance. The DC Metro also has the same problem of being a jobs program for inner city residents, so efficiency upgrades are fought tooth and nail by the union.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Both things can be true I believe both are and will be. But to what degree? If it’s billions on bloat, then we need a cost cutter at the top (in addition to new funding).

moate 8y ago
It's part the MTA, part the city government as a whole, and part the state government. This feels like classic "too many cooks" bureaucracy where everyone knows THEY have the right answer and everyone else at the table is conspiring against their golden plan.
bunderbunder 8y ago
I started my career working in the transportation sector, and that leaves me skeptical that it can be so simple. I've watched cost cutters at work in government transportation departments. Their MO seems to always be to cut the costs that are easy to cut so they can claim easy wins right away. Unfortunately, the costs that are easy to cut are typically things like skimping on maintenance. This leads to higher costs in the long run, but, hey, that'll take decades to come to fruition, and by then it'll be someone else's problem. In short, the state of American infrastructure today is a result of decades upon decades of mismanagement by the cost cutters. I have a hard time believing they can also be the solution. Maybe find an efficiency maven instead?
- jandrese 8y ago
  A good example of this is the DC Metro. It was in a complete maintenance crisis a few years ago and has been playing an extremely expensive game of catchup to avoid killing any more passengers. Service quality and price have suffered while they try to rush all of the deferred maintenance. The DC Metro also has the same problem of being a jobs program for inner city residents, so efficiency upgrades are fought tooth and nail by the union.