Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 162 posts

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#111

Post by casefields »

qub1t wrote: post #100
zanny wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the misguided notion infrastructure should make a profit even come from? Everyone hates on Amtrak for not being a profitable company. When in history has infrastructure ever existed for the sake of the network operators profit? It is always for the sake of profiting those who use it - the infrastructure enables profits, but in the same way sticking profits into medicine cripples the efficiency of the syste…

Hong Kong has one of the best subway systems in the world and it generates a profit every year [1]. The USPS also generates profits as well [2]. I would argue that the profit motive incentivises efficiency in both of those examples. The best innovation often happens when working under constraints; often a drive for profit results in better service for everyone using the infrastructure. Of course this isn't the case 1…

That was USPS's first profit in 5 years just so we are clear.

http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/02/usps-records-first...

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#112

Post by GirlsCanCode »

lasermike026 wrote: post #67

NYC MTA needs billions of dollars to fix the system. NY state must raise taxes on the rich and deploy it too the MTA. The federal must chip in too. The MTA will never make money and this is how it is.

Pure evil. Everyone uses the subway, everyone should pay. Not just "the rich."

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#113

Post by felipemnoa »

bogomipz wrote: post #78

>"Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority acknowledged that the schedules were not being met, and they blamed overcrowding for the shortfall." No, the overcrowding is the effect of the MTA not addressing massive increases in ridership over an almost 20 year period. The MTA likes to pretend publicly that the ridership boom came out of nowhere and blindsided everyone. However the increase in ridership ha…

>>an average increase of just over 4 million per year. However, 1997 was a turning point for the relatively stagnant ridership growth experienced by New York City’s subway system. In 1998,just after the introduction of the MetroCard, over 137 million more rides were taken than the year before.

That is a huge change. Frankly, knowing nothing else I would almost be willing to guess that what accounts for the change is better tracking due to the new MetroCard system.

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#114

Post by wan23 »

TillE wrote: post #88
Sangermaine wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then it should close at night. No, it shouldn't, and I take it by this statement you don't live in NYC. I do, and have lived in Tokyo and other cities with excellent mass transit. While Tokyo's system is much, much better, it's pretty fantastic that I know I can always get a train home no matter what time it is, no matter where in the city I am, much faster than any ground vehicle would take me.

Everywhere else just runs replacement buses at night and it's fine. Yeah ok it's a little slower, but it means you're not running a huge train for five people.

There are way more than five people per train at any time of the day or night. Besides all the people with night and early-morning jobs, there's also the fact that bars are open until 4 AM. They call New York "The City That Never Sleeps" for a reason.

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#115

Post by rst »

IshKebab wrote: post #99
chiph wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a New Yorker, but what I heard was that the tunnels only have two tracks, and both are needed for daily operations. So you can't replace one when it wears out because of the service interruption. If they had made the tunnels wide enough for three tracks, they'd have a spare for when they do repairs on one of them. And give them a place to do a rolling-upgrade of old middle-20th century signaling equipment.

Why not just do work on it at night like they do on the tube?

New York's subway system runs 24 hours, and many residents rely on late-night/early morning service.

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#116

Post by rayiner »

lasermike026 wrote: post #67

NYC MTA needs billions of dollars to fix the system. NY state must raise taxes on the rich and deploy it too the MTA. The federal must chip in too. The MTA will never make money and this is how it is.

The MTA spends about twice as much per ride as the London Tube. It doesn't need more money.

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#117

Post by rst »

stingrae wrote: post #110

Instead of cancelling trains, why not take the unused cars and make the running trains longer? I understand that the stations may not be able to handle the length. You could stagger entries so that the first half of the train loads, pulls forward a bit then the second half loads. If it is an issue with the strength of the train engines, could you use two train engines together? Especially if their intended routes are…

The trains on the 4/5/6 lines are already the full length of the platforms. (As on every other NYC subway line except for the G and a few of the shuttles.)

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#118

Post by martinald »

spyspy wrote: post #13
treyfitty wrote: post #4

I used to take the 456 line on Lexington Ave. back and forth between Home & Work for the past 5 years. In January, the Q line on 86th st. opened, and although it takes me ~10 minutes longer each way, it is a MUCH more pleasant experience. The 456 is a nightmare, and I can tell you first hand, that it is crowded to a point where it is inhumane (imagine people literally fighting for a spot to have the "privilege" to sm…

The 456 is the reason I stopped commuting to work before 10. Taking the L from where I live today isn't much different. The trick I've found is that if the sign says there are two trains incoming that are within a minute of each other, always take the second train. People will self-sardine themselves on the first and the second with be mostly empty.

Man, I wish that was the case in London. The central/victoria lines runs at 36tph (less than 2 mins wait between trains) but they are crush loaded full between 7am and 9am. Luckily we have crossrail coming to relieve the central line, which took less than 10 years to build in its entirety. Unlike the 2nd Av Subway which seems to be taking about 30 years (ignoring the failed start in the 70s).

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#119

Post by martinald »

ghaff wrote: post #103
jdavis703 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have multiple tools to handle building more infrastructure as density goes up. There's land value capture which is a tax developers (or new occupants) agree to pay on any excess value created by a transit improvement (i.e. chicken before the egg). Then there are development proffers, which requires developers to pay for certain public improvements (i.e. egg before the chicken).

In theory. In practice, as we see, building things like new subway lines take decades. More money certainly helps but build a few skyscrapers of residential housing over the next decade and you might get incremental subway lines to support that in fifty years or so.

It shouldn't take decades though. Perhaps a decade max including planning. Other cities manage to do that. It seems to be a particularly US problem that any transport project of capital size >10bn becomes a complete disaster.

Re: New York’s Subways Are Not Just Delayed, Some Trains Don’t Run at All

#120

Post by bogomipz »

felipemnoa wrote: post #113
bogomipz wrote: post #78

>"Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority acknowledged that the schedules were not being met, and they blamed overcrowding for the shortfall." No, the overcrowding is the effect of the MTA not addressing massive increases in ridership over an almost 20 year period. The MTA likes to pretend publicly that the ridership boom came out of nowhere and blindsided everyone. However the increase in ridership ha…

>>an average increase of just over 4 million per year. However, 1997 was a turning point for the relatively stagnant ridership growth experienced by New York City’s subway system. In 1998,just after the introduction of the MetroCard, over 137 million more rides were taken than the year before. That is a huge change. Frankly, knowing nothing else I would almost be willing to guess that what accounts for the change is…

I think that's unlikely, prior to the card system you needed to purchase a token and drop it in the slot in the turn style so they could still account for ridership.

A more likely explanation is that Metro Cards simply made it a better deal since they now allowed you to transfer between the subway and bus on the same fare and they also offered riders unlimited 7 day and unlimited 30 day options.

See: http://www.mta.info/news-subway-bus-new-york-city-transit-me...

Post reply on HN