2 ms·

> Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subs

• rayiner 7y ago
  > It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher. > and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment. London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs. These are all “liberal” policies. As to cleanliness, cleaning is an operating cost, and that’s an example of something that the US does in a “liberal” way (cleaning staff typically are government employees), while Europe often does in a “conservative” way. In the case of London, cleaning is an operating cost Transport for London is required to pay for through ticket revenue, while in New York the government covers half the cost. And in Stockholm, cleaning, along with most other operations, is done by private companies. > You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue. New York spends twice as much per passenger mile as London in operating costs, and several times as much for equivalent new infrastructure. In no way is New York’s system starved of revenue. Same for DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. None of these systems are “starved for revenue.”
  • danans 7y ago
    > London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher. Right, which is why I agree NYC subway fares should be higher, and shouldn't be a flat-rate no matter where you are going, which is what they are today IIUC. But lower incomes than NYC that also means the London underground's labor costs are lower. Londoners make do with the higher fares despite their lower incomes because driving is even more expensive. > London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs. Without a citation (I'm genuinely interested) for a comparative strength of transit unions for NYC and London and the resulting effect on capital costs, there is nothing backing this statement besides what appears to be your general anti-union ideology. London Underground workers are part of a national union [1], and have organized a number of strikes, as recently as 2017 [2]. Regarding environmental reviews TfL has to do those also [3]. Please provide some references to support the assertion that their reviews are sufficiently less onerous than NYC's. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Maritime_and_Transport_Workers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Mariti... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_strikes [3] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/environment-reports https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/enviro... Ultimately, Londoners pay a higher price for a higher quality of public transit service. Setting up the system to work that way that way isn't the result of a religious adherence to "liberal" or "conservative" policies, it's a decision to make public transit a priority and establishing whatever structures and incentives are needed to achieve that.