4 ms·

It is infuriating to have the life blood of one of the greatest cities in history so utterly ignored by Andrew Cuomo, the person who is actually responsible for

It is infuriating to have the life blood of one of the greatest cities in history so utterly ignored by Andrew Cuomo, the person who is actually responsible for funding it. The best and most practical plan for funding the unfunded capital plan is Move NY [0], which is a form of congestion pricing. [0] http://iheartmoveny.org/ http://iheartmoveny.org/

bradleyjg 12y ago
I'm all for spending more money on transit. I think both Albany and Washington should be kicking in more money considering the net cash flows. That said, the MTA has a serious cost problem. Their projects are routinely way over budget and massively delayed. The 7 extension and east side access (LIRR) projects cost considerably more per km than any rail project anywhere in the world. Yes, they are complex but so are many other projects (e.g. London crossrail). It's not any one underlying problem, but the byzantine MTA governance structure makes it hard to address all of them.
- fraserharris 12y ago
  The cost problem is tied to how procurement & bidding is done by the MTA. Rules & regulations (often in law) have built up over time to protect against corruption & failure. They have calcified out-dated construction practices and insulates the process from any real competition amongst the limited number of approved suppliers. In addition, federal funding comes with requirements to use suppliers that only employ unionized labor.
  - jasonwocky 12y ago
    > Rules & regulations (often in law) have built up over time to protect against corruption & failure Having worked for NYC and become familiar with their vendor selection processes, I often wonder if the costs of corruption prevention (both direct and opportunity costs) often outweigh their benefits. For one thing, the vendor certification process costs quite a bit of time and effort on the part of their potential vendors, which rules out a lot of smaller (perhaps more efficient) entities in favor of bigger corporations who have the resources to jump through the hoops. The Tweed Courthouse may be one of the most corrupt structures ever built, but at least it's beautiful and it got done.
copsarebastards 12y ago
That looks pretty good. However, I don't think it's really reasonable in a city the size of NYC for people to be commuting by car. I'd honestly rather see the following: 1. Bridge tolls raised to make things even rather than reducing some to make them even. 2. Exception for trucks which transport stuff that can't be transported by train. 3. Use the money to expand parking at suburban entry points to the rail system and improve the rail system. The way I see it, bridges are for trucks transporting goods, not for people driving to work.
- keevie 12y ago
  Right, I don't disagree with you, but....that's not going to happen. It's literally politically impossible right now. So incremental steps are great.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    No! I demand it all or nothing, right now! (the vibe I get from the typical political activist)
    - copsarebastards 12y ago
      That's just pretty basic political strategy. If you want to build a hotel on a pristine island, start off with a proposal to build 40 hotels on the pristine island. Then you compromise on 1 and you've got what you want.
- WoodenChair 12y ago
  You may not find driving across bridges palatable for the environment or congestion, but there are many situations in which it makes sense. For example, there are people with disabilities who can't take trains. There are workers who live in areas of Queens or Brooklyn not covered well by the Subway. There are tourists who want to drive into the city from neighboring states. I speak from personal experience. I personally hate driving into the city but I'm aware of many people/situations who for all practical purposes must.
heliodor 12y ago
I wanted to see just how true MoveNY's claim is that the price is skyrocketing. Here'a a graph with some quick data grabbed off the internet: http://i.imgur.com/qbhSNbH.png http://i.imgur.com/qbhSNbH.png The fare was $0.30 in 1970. From there, I applied the inflation rate to compare with the fare prices. The price of a ride should be reduced on this graph once unlimited metrocards were introduced because those are cheaper and account for a big chunk of the usage. Regarding the chart above, the slope of the "line" for the fare is 5.4 cents/year and the slope for the price index "line" is 3.6 cents/year.
- dget 12y ago
  To be fair... the price was artificially kept at $0.05 from when the subway system was opened in 1904 until some point in the 50's - which in the process helped drive the private operators of the system out of business.
- ploxiln 12y ago
  I think the price is fair. But the ridership, growing or not, is already HUGE. Multiple lines are packed multiple times every single weekday and sometimes on weekends too. Whether people are paying $116.50 monthly or $2.75 per-ride, the MTA must have huge revenues. Wikipedia says "operating revenue" in 2011 was $6.5 billion. That's a huge amount of money. Sure, it's a big system, with a lot of costs, but... so much money... and there's no easy way to apply competitive pressure, you can't have a literal competitor, so I don't know what could be done, but it has to be possible to have better maintained stations, even more frequent trains during rush hours when certain lines are literally overflowing, and have money left over. And somehow they were losing money in 2011. Well, individually, I suppose not...
  - mc32 12y ago
    That price is competitive with many systems in other major international cities[1] --many international cities have fares based on distance. Flat fares are nice (contrast with tokyo, wash DC, london, stockholm) [1] http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-transportation-prices-in-80-worldwide-cities/ http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-transportation-price...
avn2109 12y ago
It really does seem to me like the only possible sane strategy, on a systems level, is to raise the cost of operating a private automobile in Manhattan and use the revenue to subsidize or build more trains. Every other approach leads to Robert Moses/Houston/Atlanta. The implementation details and prices are certainly debatable but I'm always astounded that there exists anyone who questions the fundamental strategic premise of Manhattan=transit.

bradleyjg 12y ago

I'm all for spending more money on transit. I think both Albany and Washington should be kicking in more money considering the net cash flows. That said, the MTA has a serious cost problem. Their projects are routinely way over budget and massively delayed. The 7 extension and east side access (LIRR) projects cost considerably more per km than any rail project anywhere in the world. Yes, they are complex but so are many other projects (e.g. London crossrail). It's not any one underlying problem, but the byzantine MTA governance structure makes it hard to address all of them.

fraserharris 12y ago
The cost problem is tied to how procurement & bidding is done by the MTA. Rules & regulations (often in law) have built up over time to protect against corruption & failure. They have calcified out-dated construction practices and insulates the process from any real competition amongst the limited number of approved suppliers. In addition, federal funding comes with requirements to use suppliers that only employ unionized labor.
- jasonwocky 12y ago
  > Rules & regulations (often in law) have built up over time to protect against corruption & failure Having worked for NYC and become familiar with their vendor selection processes, I often wonder if the costs of corruption prevention (both direct and opportunity costs) often outweigh their benefits. For one thing, the vendor certification process costs quite a bit of time and effort on the part of their potential vendors, which rules out a lot of smaller (perhaps more efficient) entities in favor of bigger corporations who have the resources to jump through the hoops. The Tweed Courthouse may be one of the most corrupt structures ever built, but at least it's beautiful and it got done.

copsarebastards 12y ago

That looks pretty good. However, I don't think it's really reasonable in a city the size of NYC for people to be commuting by car. I'd honestly rather see the following: 1. Bridge tolls raised to make things even rather than reducing some to make them even. 2. Exception for trucks which transport stuff that can't be transported by train. 3. Use the money to expand parking at suburban entry points to the rail system and improve the rail system. The way I see it, bridges are for trucks transporting goods, not for people driving to work.

keevie 12y ago
Right, I don't disagree with you, but....that's not going to happen. It's literally politically impossible right now. So incremental steps are great.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  No! I demand it all or nothing, right now! (the vibe I get from the typical political activist)
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    That's just pretty basic political strategy. If you want to build a hotel on a pristine island, start off with a proposal to build 40 hotels on the pristine island. Then you compromise on 1 and you've got what you want.
WoodenChair 12y ago
You may not find driving across bridges palatable for the environment or congestion, but there are many situations in which it makes sense. For example, there are people with disabilities who can't take trains. There are workers who live in areas of Queens or Brooklyn not covered well by the Subway. There are tourists who want to drive into the city from neighboring states. I speak from personal experience. I personally hate driving into the city but I'm aware of many people/situations who for all practical purposes must.

heliodor 12y ago

I wanted to see just how true MoveNY's claim is that the price is skyrocketing. Here'a a graph with some quick data grabbed off the internet: http://i.imgur.com/qbhSNbH.png http://i.imgur.com/qbhSNbH.png The fare was $0.30 in 1970. From there, I applied the inflation rate to compare with the fare prices. The price of a ride should be reduced on this graph once unlimited metrocards were introduced because those are cheaper and account for a big chunk of the usage. Regarding the chart above, the slope of the "line" for the fare is 5.4 cents/year and the slope for the price index "line" is 3.6 cents/year.

dget 12y ago
To be fair... the price was artificially kept at $0.05 from when the subway system was opened in 1904 until some point in the 50's - which in the process helped drive the private operators of the system out of business.
ploxiln 12y ago
I think the price is fair. But the ridership, growing or not, is already HUGE. Multiple lines are packed multiple times every single weekday and sometimes on weekends too. Whether people are paying $116.50 monthly or $2.75 per-ride, the MTA must have huge revenues. Wikipedia says "operating revenue" in 2011 was $6.5 billion. That's a huge amount of money. Sure, it's a big system, with a lot of costs, but... so much money... and there's no easy way to apply competitive pressure, you can't have a literal competitor, so I don't know what could be done, but it has to be possible to have better maintained stations, even more frequent trains during rush hours when certain lines are literally overflowing, and have money left over. And somehow they were losing money in 2011. Well, individually, I suppose not...
- mc32 12y ago
  That price is competitive with many systems in other major international cities[1] --many international cities have fares based on distance. Flat fares are nice (contrast with tokyo, wash DC, london, stockholm) [1] http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-transportation-prices-in-80-worldwide-cities/ http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/public-transportation-price...

avn2109 12y ago

It really does seem to me like the only possible sane strategy, on a systems level, is to raise the cost of operating a private automobile in Manhattan and use the revenue to subsidize or build more trains. Every other approach leads to Robert Moses/Houston/Atlanta. The implementation details and prices are certainly debatable but I'm always astounded that there exists anyone who questions the fundamental strategic premise of Manhattan=transit.