4 ms·

> Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. Another major issue is the way transit authorities tend

> Even American cities that existed then are drastically different and larger than they were back then. Another major issue is the way transit authorities tend to be governed and funded in the US. They're often prone to political disagreements between cities and suburbs, or between city and state governments, or between multiple states. The two-party system doesn't exactly lead to coalition-building. Take Philly for example: SEPTA regional rail has been through-running since the mid 80s, which is great, and the network is fairly well-aligned with population centers and employment centers. But year after year, SEPTA is consistently in a state of utter crisis, typically due to lack of funding.

steveBK123 1y ago
I think another tension aside from the pure source of funding is just the whole transit philosophy differences. In the US, at least in coastal cities, we sometimes seem more concerned that transit be cheap than that it be good. Transit in NYC is so cheap as to be almost free, especially considering something like 50% of bus riders beat the fare. NYC subway fare is unlimited distance and about half the price of a London zone 1 fare. This is despite white collar jobs in NYC often paying 2x the equivalent London wage. So instead of funding with usage fees at all (and say subsidizing/discounting for those in need), we just set ridiculously low fares and then try to go after higher incomes in the region with income tax levies, which is obviously unpopular. Per BBC graphic / data provided by TfL for example, London Underground is 72% funded by fares vs 38% in NYC.
- rangestransform 1y ago
  There’s a weird bipartisan agreement that spans the US, that transit should serve as welfare for the poor especially, instead of being transportation for the rich and poor alike.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  I can think of a couple of factors that lead to this state. One is: what is the cost of trying to collect those lost fares, will it even pay for itself? The same reason library fines are sometimes stopped, it costs more to collect than they will get. The other is that transportation money comes out of the same big bucket, it will cost too much to add lanes for cars, so they try to incentivize more people to take transit instead.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    This kind of logic is backwards to me. And I think it creates a slippery slope of disorder. Enforcing laws is not always cost efficient, but the less you enforce the more get broken. I see it applied to the concept of free buses in NYC where people argue that "when we introduced free buses, assaults on bus drivers went down". Personally I'd prefer not riding the bus next to a guy who is willing to commit assault over $2.90 (or $1.45 if eligible for income based discount if you make minimum wage.. so 6 minutes of labor income). There may be good reasons for free transit, but "we need to calm the violent guys down enough to get onto the bus peacefully" ain't it!
    - lupire 1y ago
      Criminalizing behavior creates criminals. Riding the bus is a far less violent act then driving a car. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
      - zdragnar 1y ago
        This kind of excuse-making for bad behavior always baffles me. It's not like we can have a functioning government if the only regulations and laws it can enforce are against violent behavior. One example that always depresses me is going into a store in an area with a lot of shoplifting. There are stores near me that have so little issue with it that hunting ammo is literally just sitting out on shelves where anyone can grab it, and yet drive half an hour in the other direction to the nearest metro city and the pharmacies have to keep so many items behind locked glass cabinets to deter theft. Turns out, people are plenty good at being criminals on their own.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  New York is pretty unique because of the way the MTA works. It’s public authority created by merging a bunch of public authorities created by the infamous Robert Moses with the then-destitute NYC transit and the commuter rail portions hacked off the the corpse of the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroads. The MTA board is controlled by the governor of the state. This is key because the capital, and most state jobs, are in provincial Albany. The people and cash are in NYC. So MTA is a valuable political tool for patronage. On the operational side, you also have the TWU (transit workers union) and other unions which are competent and active they aggressively vacuum any money they can. On the capital side, you a whole ecosystem of unions, contractors and various interests who want a vig from the massive MTA capital budget. You have MWBE contractors, some real, some not so much. You have insane bidding rules with multiple prime contractors, weird wage tables, contractural minimum staffing, etc. Also remember these institutions are old by American standards. The Long Island Rail Road is one of the (if not the) oldest operating railroads in the country. That means old stuff, engineering debt and weird legacy processes. As an example, when they bored tunnels a few years ago, 50-60 workers were “manning” a TBM. In Paris at the same time with the same machine… 12. It adds up. Everyone knows it’s a shitshow, which is why many people DNGAF about fare evasion. The cops only care about it as mining operation for overtime. If some dude is making $90/hr for 30 fake laborers, why are you hassling a 17 year old for $3? The $500 ticket costs $2500 in NYPD labor.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Right, the MTA & governor who funds it care more about the TWU/LIRR union/contractors/etc, as a contiguous voting block than they do about the actual riders. The act of spending money for them is the objective, and a form of patronage. Whether it is well spent, or leads to good outcomes is besides the point. So the spigot of money is sporadic, and everything we spend on is overpriced / not necessarily the right project for riders.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      It’s one of those road to hell is paved with good intentions scenarios. If I buy lunch in Poughkeepsie, I contribute as much as a subway rider to the MTA’s coffers. Frankly the rider is the least important stakeholder. The state would probably save money if it just refused passengers and ran it like a model railroad.

steveBK123 1y ago

I think another tension aside from the pure source of funding is just the whole transit philosophy differences. In the US, at least in coastal cities, we sometimes seem more concerned that transit be cheap than that it be good. Transit in NYC is so cheap as to be almost free, especially considering something like 50% of bus riders beat the fare. NYC subway fare is unlimited distance and about half the price of a London zone 1 fare. This is despite white collar jobs in NYC often paying 2x the equivalent London wage. So instead of funding with usage fees at all (and say subsidizing/discounting for those in need), we just set ridiculously low fares and then try to go after higher incomes in the region with income tax levies, which is obviously unpopular. Per BBC graphic / data provided by TfL for example, London Underground is 72% funded by fares vs 38% in NYC.

rangestransform 1y ago
There’s a weird bipartisan agreement that spans the US, that transit should serve as welfare for the poor especially, instead of being transportation for the rich and poor alike.
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
I can think of a couple of factors that lead to this state. One is: what is the cost of trying to collect those lost fares, will it even pay for itself? The same reason library fines are sometimes stopped, it costs more to collect than they will get. The other is that transportation money comes out of the same big bucket, it will cost too much to add lanes for cars, so they try to incentivize more people to take transit instead.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  This kind of logic is backwards to me. And I think it creates a slippery slope of disorder. Enforcing laws is not always cost efficient, but the less you enforce the more get broken. I see it applied to the concept of free buses in NYC where people argue that "when we introduced free buses, assaults on bus drivers went down". Personally I'd prefer not riding the bus next to a guy who is willing to commit assault over $2.90 (or $1.45 if eligible for income based discount if you make minimum wage.. so 6 minutes of labor income). There may be good reasons for free transit, but "we need to calm the violent guys down enough to get onto the bus peacefully" ain't it!
  - lupire 1y ago
    Criminalizing behavior creates criminals. Riding the bus is a far less violent act then driving a car. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      This kind of excuse-making for bad behavior always baffles me. It's not like we can have a functioning government if the only regulations and laws it can enforce are against violent behavior. One example that always depresses me is going into a store in an area with a lot of shoplifting. There are stores near me that have so little issue with it that hunting ammo is literally just sitting out on shelves where anyone can grab it, and yet drive half an hour in the other direction to the nearest metro city and the pharmacies have to keep so many items behind locked glass cabinets to deter theft. Turns out, people are plenty good at being criminals on their own.
Spooky23 1y ago
New York is pretty unique because of the way the MTA works. It’s public authority created by merging a bunch of public authorities created by the infamous Robert Moses with the then-destitute NYC transit and the commuter rail portions hacked off the the corpse of the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroads. The MTA board is controlled by the governor of the state. This is key because the capital, and most state jobs, are in provincial Albany. The people and cash are in NYC. So MTA is a valuable political tool for patronage. On the operational side, you also have the TWU (transit workers union) and other unions which are competent and active they aggressively vacuum any money they can. On the capital side, you a whole ecosystem of unions, contractors and various interests who want a vig from the massive MTA capital budget. You have MWBE contractors, some real, some not so much. You have insane bidding rules with multiple prime contractors, weird wage tables, contractural minimum staffing, etc. Also remember these institutions are old by American standards. The Long Island Rail Road is one of the (if not the) oldest operating railroads in the country. That means old stuff, engineering debt and weird legacy processes. As an example, when they bored tunnels a few years ago, 50-60 workers were “manning” a TBM. In Paris at the same time with the same machine… 12. It adds up. Everyone knows it’s a shitshow, which is why many people DNGAF about fare evasion. The cops only care about it as mining operation for overtime. If some dude is making $90/hr for 30 fake laborers, why are you hassling a 17 year old for $3? The $500 ticket costs $2500 in NYPD labor.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Right, the MTA & governor who funds it care more about the TWU/LIRR union/contractors/etc, as a contiguous voting block than they do about the actual riders. The act of spending money for them is the objective, and a form of patronage. Whether it is well spent, or leads to good outcomes is besides the point. So the spigot of money is sporadic, and everything we spend on is overpriced / not necessarily the right project for riders.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    It’s one of those road to hell is paved with good intentions scenarios. If I buy lunch in Poughkeepsie, I contribute as much as a subway rider to the MTA’s coffers. Frankly the rider is the least important stakeholder. The state would probably save money if it just refused passengers and ran it like a model railroad.