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

How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 319 posts

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#171

Post by clutchski »

camillomiller wrote: post #122

New York's transport is baffling to me. The lack of a proper subway or special express train option to get quickly to the airports is doubly baffling. I guess the cross-state jurisdiction is one of the issues with Newark, but the AirTrain solution over at JFK is way subpar if compared to other major cities. I've been there twice in a few months and it's simply a disaster. 2.5 hrs by car to get to Newark from Williams…

NYC's airport transit isn't as good as other cities (Tokyo, Toronto, etc) but nobody who lives in New York would make that trip by car at that time. They'd fly from LGA or JFK or take the car.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#172

Post by chimeracoder »

magila wrote: post #67
taurath wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't either. It feels like everything we do costs 10x anywhere else for 10x the time. You would think the cost of building a few light rail lines in a city like Seattle would cost less than a cross-town subway in Japan. In my short life I've never seen America really build anything impressive in transportation - BART, the NYC Subway, the interstate highway system, and most of our airports seem like they w…

I think it has a lot to do with the way government in the US is structured, specifically the focus on local representatives. Because US legislators are beholden to voters in a particular locality, any time there's an infrastructure project which receives state and/or federal funding there is tremendous pressure to make it draw as much money as possible into the local economy. This is the classic "bringing home the ba…

> I think it has a lot to do with the way government in the US is structured, specifically the focus on local representatives. Because US legislators are beholden to voters in a particular locality, any time there's an infrastructure project which receives state and/or federal funding there is tremendous pressure to make it draw as much money as possible into the local economy.

You're describing the rest of the US, not New York. New York is the other way around, where extreme corruption and disenfranchisement means elected officials have no reason to pay attention to their constituents. Sheldon Silver was one of the strongest advocates for cutting bus service, even though his district has no subway service, so they all depend on it.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#173

Post by lmm »

matt4077 wrote: post #137
apexalpha wrote: post #121

>In one particularly egregious example, Mr. Cuomo’s administration forced the M.T.A. to send $5 million to bail out three state-run ski resorts that were struggling after a warm winter. What? Do American State-level governments not have checks in place for this kind of stuff? This sounds like something Mugabe would do for his private ski resorts, lol.

As your quote points out: these are state-run businesses. I'm sceptical of the sate running ski resorts. But ignoring that for a second, it's not out of the ordinary to cover a loss that was the result from extraordinary events such as a warm winter. Presumably, they didn't have to bail them out in other years, meaning they ran a profit in other years.

The state central government bailing out a state-run business is fine. Getting the state transport authority to bail out a business unrelated to transport seems obviously wrong.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#174

Post by lmm »

pattle wrote: post #129

I've never been to New York and I've don't know much about the subway system but I was watching a documentary recently that showed they were building some new platforms underneath Grand Central station. I think from memory they were also building new lines to cope with the massive stress the service is under, so it looks like these problems are trying to be resolved?

From the article it sounds like a big problem is politicians are (for understandable reasons) happy to allocate money for new platforms or new lines, but not allocating enough funding to the maintenance and signalling that keeps the trains running.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#175

Post by Chathamization »

mseebach wrote: post #155
Chathamization wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This leaves us with no levers of power over government decisions. I'm not sure I understand this. Yes, the hand-picked successor will be able to fulfill the rest of the term, but then he's up for re-election. If people were actually outraged about this, they could vote him out the next time there's an election (just like they could have voted out the predecessor that set this process in motion). If people were real…

That's not a very practical way to think about democracy. Yes, that's the middle school government-class platonic ideal of democracy and government, but that's not exactly the whole dynamic. I mean do you also find it hard to believe that people are bothered by Trump? After all, "they" just elected him.

So, I brought up Cuomo's election in 2014 - let's look at that example. Teachout was running a reformist campaign against Cuomo in the 2014 Democratic primary (and Credico was running as well). Only 594,287 people bothered showing up to vote. Of those showing up to vote, 361,380 voted for Cuomo[1]. In November 2015, there were 5,778,460 registered Democrats in New York[2].

So in 2014, after a fairly serious issue involving Cuomo getting rid of an anti-corruption panel because it was investigating corruption connected to him, only 4% of registered Democrats - four percent! - bothered to show up and vote for someone other than him in the primaries. And this was for governor! Almost 90% of registered Democrats didn't vote at all - they didn't care one way or the other who would be governor. Down ballot races usually get even less attention.

Naturally, I'm not saying that there isn't anyone who cares and acts accordingly. But what I am saying is that the amount of people who care and act accordingly are a minority, and in many cases, a very small minority.

[1] http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2014/Primary/20... [2] https://nypost.com/2016/04/06/ny-voter-registration-barely-i...

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#176

Post by arkades »

L_Rahman wrote: post #69
Chathamization wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people in London and Toronto care enough to pressure their leaders about this? In my experience it's hard to find people in the U.S. who even bother to pay attention to who has oversight when it comes to transportation (and not just transportation, this is true for a lot of local issues).

I promise you that New Yorkers care about this deeply. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-human-cost-of-subway... Any survey of New Yorkers and government services will tell you how much this matters. The biggest problem is that the New York government at city and state levels is one of the most corrupt, oligarchic and undemocratic organizations in modern society. I cannot begin to describe how broken it is. Her…

Wait, /is/ that article a good example? It argues the source of corruption is that various local politicians can hand off their seats to a preferred successor, giving that successor and their party an incumbency advantage. I can see that being a provlem, instead of an open election, but...

“Vacancies are filled differently across the country. In 25 states, replacement legislators are simply chosen by appointment, either by the governor (11 states) or some combination of party and local officials (14 states), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Varying rules govern the 25 states that hold special elections, but few bestow more influence on local power brokers than New York does.”

So, in 25 states the power to hand off succession is as or more concentrated. This would seem to put NYs succession regulations right square in the middle of the pack.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#177

Post by chimeracoder »

arkades wrote: post #176
L_Rahman wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I promise you that New Yorkers care about this deeply. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-human-cost-of-subway... Any survey of New Yorkers and government services will tell you how much this matters. The biggest problem is that the New York government at city and state levels is one of the most corrupt, oligarchic and undemocratic organizations in modern society. I cannot begin to describe how broken it is. Her…

Wait, /is/ that article a good example? It argues the source of corruption is that various local politicians can hand off their seats to a preferred successor, giving that successor and their party an incumbency advantage. I can see that being a provlem, instead of an open election, but... “Vacancies are filled differently across the country. In 25 states, replacement legislators are simply chosen by appointment, eit…

You can't look at an individual law alone. New York has a whole array of laws designed to protect the power of both major parties, and they work in conjunction with each other.

Want to switch your party registration? Go ahead and do it today - it won't take effect until 2019. Yes, you read that right. This deadline for change of party registration is an order of magnitude larger than the next largest state. New York also uses fusion voting to weaken third parties - they only have any influence whatsoever if they endorse the major party candidates, which prevents any real competition with the major party candidates. (See how Cuomo created the fake "Women's Equality Party" during the last election cycle specifically in an attempt to strip the Working Families Party of its ballot status).

There are a whole range of these laws, and if I were to go into all of them, I'd exceed the maximum length for a HN comment ten times over,. The end result is that New York is, objective, the most corrupt state in the country[0], and the system is also perfectly stable (in the literal sense) - there is no way, short of a federal court case, that any of these laws will ever meaningfully change.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/sep/19/el...

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#178

Post by chimeracoder »

Chathamization wrote: post #175
mseebach wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a very practical way to think about democracy. Yes, that's the middle school government-class platonic ideal of democracy and government, but that's not exactly the whole dynamic. I mean do you also find it hard to believe that people are bothered by Trump? After all, "they" just elected him.

So, I brought up Cuomo's election in 2014 - let's look at that example. Teachout was running a reformist campaign against Cuomo in the 2014 Democratic primary (and Credico was running as well). Only 594,287 people bothered showing up to vote. Of those showing up to vote, 361,380 voted for Cuomo[1]. In November 2015, there were 5,778,460 registered Democrats in New York[2]. So in 2014, after a fairly serious issue inv…

> only 4% of registered Democrats - four percent! - bothered to show up and vote for someone other than him in the primaries.

New York has low turnout because it has a set of laws that serve to disenfranchise voters in ways that other states could only ever dream of. (Yes, people technically have the right to vote, but because of a set of laws which I've described elsewhere, there's no way for them to use these votes to hold their elected officials accountable, like there is in other states).

Once every decade or so, yes, there's a race that's moderately contested (like the one you describe). But at that point, people aren't in the habit of voting anyway.

By the way, in your example the only reason Teachout ran as a Democrat instead of on the Working Families Party as she'd planned is because of these laws. The Working Families Party was pressured into endorsing Cuomo as their candidate, to ensure that they'd retain their ballot access. Teachout was angry enough that she decided to run as a Democrat, knowing full well that she'd lose, because nobody in New York ever wins a primary without the backing of the major party[0].

Teachout is far and away an exception, not the rule. Even then, her run was purely symbolic, and she herself knew it.

[0] Again, due to a whole bunch of laws that give the party incredible influence in shaping the outcome of primaries.

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#179

Post by Symbiote »

tialaramex wrote: post #158
blahedo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DC metro was mostly built in the 80s and 90s (early construction started in the 70s), and the Portland MAX started construction in the mid 80s and has been expanding regularly since then. Atlanta's MARTA rail network was built mostly in the 80s. There are examples if you look for them, though I'm not sure what all counts as "impressive" here. Outside of city subways: Amtrak's Acela service (which is what passes f…

Acela is technically capable of speeds that would be considered "high speed" for a legacy system (which is what this is, it's not like they could tear out New York city and build fresh then put it all back) of over 150mph. Unfortunately lack of investment means it doesn't achieve what is possible along most of the route. Two main things you'd do if you had money and political will to speed this up: 1. Tear out old br…

> it's not like they could tear out New York city and build fresh then put it all back

Several large cities in Europe have built new high speed tracks in tunnels under the city.

The track between London St Pancras and Stratford stations in London (and from Stratford further east) is an example. St Pancras is the end of the line, so the speed is necessarily limited by the acceleration and braking capability of the train, but [1] says the speed is 230km/h = 142mph. [2] says speeds in tunnels are limited to 270km/h (168mph), they probably mean a bit further out of the city.

Other than the last 1km or so, the whole track of this route is new.

Realistically, any city worth spending so much money on will have every train stopping at it, so there's no need for higher speeds in under-city tunnels.

[1] https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs1-maximum-permitted-s...

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6969116.stm

Re: How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways

#180

Post by StanislavPetrov »

mseebach wrote: post #159
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not being willing to punish politicians for incompetence. Punish them how? Here in America (and especially New York) we have a "two-party" system that works arm in arm to steal as much money as possible to line their own pockets. Voting for a different party doesn't mean getting a different policy - it simply means that patronage money is going into the pocket of different politically connected cronies.

Most of the rest of the world has "two-block" politics in practice, if not formally. The vast majority of national elections are between two prime minister candidates, whatever the makeup of their underlying coalitions is fairly marginal. I think the difference in the US is much more fundamental, pluralism is baked in to the culture in a way that is pretty unique anywhere in the world, so people have very strong reac…

There are some "cultural differences" here in the US that are used by the two corporate parties to distract and divide the people, but when it comes to substantive issues, there is no difference between the two. The same generals preside over the same endless wars. The same rotating crowd of FED chairmen, SEC lawyers, and supply-side economists hold sway over our "economy" (see lifelong Democrat and Goldmach Sachs alumni Gary Cohen who is making economic policy for Trump). The same crowd of insurance and drug company lobbyists run our for-profit healthcare system (whether or not we call it "Obamacare" and offer insubstantial subsidies to people mandated to buy insurance they can't afford from for-profit companies for policies with massive deductibles that render the insurance largely useless). The same crowd of authoritarians are appointed to prosecute the "war on drugs", which is really a war on the citizens and civil liberties. The same group of CIA agents are appointed to run the same police-state domestic (and global) spying programs and group of other various police-state agencies that are steadily eroding what few rights and privacy we have left.

All of these things remain exactly the same no matter how much people cry about Trump, or wear pussy hats, or scream about 54 different genders or how "white supremacy" is the problem. All of these substantive policies would have been identical (and run by many of the same people) had Hillary won the election. In reality, the .00001% of the people who own this country and both corporate parties are laughing at all those people while they continue to rape the people and steal our freedoms.

Post reply on HN