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

The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 258 posts

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#121

Post by technofiend »

peter303 wrote: post #109
DalekBaldwin wrote: post #75

The fundamental reason for worsening subway service in recent years may be more mundane than we assumed: https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/03/13/the-trains-are-slowe... It was slowly driving me insane at my last job. Now, I just have to dial in to the morning meeting, then I can work from home for about an hour before heading in to the office, and we've been asked to stay home even for fairly light snowstorms this wi…

The system is a century old with original electromechanical controllers.

And intentional slow downs due to prevent accidents. The siganling system needs to be replaced so trains can safely go faster. Not disagreement as much as just expanding on your comment.

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#122

Post by yardie »

pmiller2 wrote: post #63
kgc wrote: post #54

Maybe they should have scheduled maintenance closures that reoccur over the same parts of the day every day. Say, 1-5am?. So, it would be a 20hr/day instead of 24hr/day subway, but would be dependable during those 20 hrs.

Then how do people get home from the bars? That's my major complaint about BART, that it stops running too early. If I'm out late enough in the city, I can't return to the East Bay easily, so I either end up stressing to get the last train, or end up having to use my car, which has its own stress involved.

Night bus. The MTA has more than trains.

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#123

Post by CydeWeys »

_m8fo wrote: post #119
CydeWeys wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for getting my intent. I was more trying to acknowledge my privilege in being able to live within cycling distance of work; tech pays well enough to enable that but many other jobs don't. There's lots of people in NYC who can't afford to live even 40 minutes away from work by mass transit, and who suffer a lot when that mass transit starts getting unreliable. And, no surprise, a lot of my coworkers who also bi…

You save $100/month by not needing to take transit, but how much more is housing that's within biking distance? Extending your logic you might as well live within walking distance and save the Citi bike cost, as well.

Well, depends on where you work, and how willing you are to bike long distances, but on average probably more than that. That's why I acknolwedged it's a luxury not available to everyone. Choosing biking over transit adds a level of certainty to travel time that choosing walking over biking does not (as walking is only a little bit more certain than biking). It's the certainty that's really worth paying the extra for.

Don't underestimate the much bigger monthly savings of not owning a car, though. I moved from the suburbs in MD where having a car was essentially required to here, and that saved at least $600 per month. All told I haven't found it much more expensive to live in NYC; yes, rent is more, but transportation costs are way less.

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#124

Post by Arbalest »

grandmczeb wrote: post #114
Arbalest wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely enough, even in cities such as mine, which aren't so packed, cycling is still faster. Busses are faster than cars because they don't need to park, but still take 30-35 minutes. I can cycle in in 20 minutes. Note there is no train in my direction. I think this is partially because bicycles are not that popular here, but there are provisions for bikes that go above and beyond cars. Having seen Bruges in Belgi…

I live in Palo Alto and this is frequently true even though biking is definitely an afterthought in most cases. By car, I can get to work in about 30 min (+/-10 with traffic) but can bike there in consistency less than 20.

Oh yes, definitely an afterthought, but it only takes a few concessions to make previously unusable side streets a bike highway.

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#125

Post by droidist2 »

maxerickson wrote: post #38
jorblumesea wrote: post #6

I'm confused as to why the US seems to fail or fall so far behind in infrastructure compared to other developed nations. It seems that we throw money at our problems but seemingly get nowhere. It's sad because there's many amazing things about this country, but we cannot do basic things like make trains run on time.

I think a contributor is that some people believe that underfunding will somehow address our higher costs. But often the problems are structural and underfunding just erodes efficiency further.

Is it also because if you underfund the MTA they won't become more efficient, they'll just raise fares and reduce services?

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#126

Post by tokyoguy »

caminante wrote: post #80
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this doubly reinforces how good it is in Sweden where I live now. While trains and buses are notoriously delayed (somewhat frequently), I can look on a phone app and tell when the next one will arrive +- 1 minute. It’s no Switzerland or Japan, but it’s what a reasonably well run system looks like.

>[Sweden's public transit is] no Switzerland or Japan, but it’s what a reasonably well run system looks like. Comparing Sweden to NYC isn't fair. NYC Subway has ~742 stations (v. ~100 in Stockholm) and 1,756M in annual ridership (v. ~328M in Stockholm). This is just for the subway and excludes NY transit bus ridership.

so compare to Tokyo with ~2100 stations 14 billion annual riders and the trains run on time. NYC has zero excuse

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#127

Post by eecsninja »

jdhn wrote: post #118
eecsninja wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. I'm tired of hearing people make excuses for the NYC subway system such as age and complexity, seemingly ignorant that there's plenty of large cities in other first-world countries in the 10+ million range that do a much better job. Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. I think the actual explanation is that the NYC system was not properly maintained during the postwar period, when…

>Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better. An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway. >fixed ticket price don't help I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything…

> An argument could be made that that's exactly why it's doing better. Since it got completely destroyed, it could be built from the ground up without the legacy costs that are now plaguing NYC's subway.

What kind of "legacy costs" are you referring to, which would be higher than the cost to build the system from the ground up?

> I simply can't see the MTA adopting ticket prices that are based on zones. The outcry would be larger than anything seen to date.

Yes, hence "lack of political will." There are too many people who benefit from some aspect of the inefficient status quo, be it outer borough commuters, late night partiers, or people living next to minor subway stations. Knowing American politics, that's why I am pessimistic that the dysfunctional status quo in the NYC subway will ever change.

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#128

Post by stefs »

caminante wrote: post #80
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this doubly reinforces how good it is in Sweden where I live now. While trains and buses are notoriously delayed (somewhat frequently), I can look on a phone app and tell when the next one will arrive +- 1 minute. It’s no Switzerland or Japan, but it’s what a reasonably well run system looks like.

>[Sweden's public transit is] no Switzerland or Japan, but it’s what a reasonably well run system looks like. Comparing Sweden to NYC isn't fair. NYC Subway has ~742 stations (v. ~100 in Stockholm) and 1,756M in annual ridership (v. ~328M in Stockholm). This is just for the subway and excludes NY transit bus ridership.

well, do all factors scale linearly? if so, it shouldn't make that much of a difference. let's compare it to the subway system of vienna, austria (which is said to have one of the best public transport systems in the world).

so here's my personal theory.

all numbers - city population count, station numbers, system length and ridership - scale at a pretty much constant factor of 4. there are at least two huge differences though: density - that's ny:28,491/sq mi vs. vie:11,205/sq mi and year of opening is 1904 vs. 1976.

i'm pretty sure density is one of the deciding factors here, but let's pretend it's not - as ridership is comparatively lower at 3.99x -, what else might be different is the budget. viennas subway system is excellent but is so far up the curve of diminishing returns that the last few percent of reliability that sets it apart come at a steep price (the city pays with taxes).

other factors: vienna has a lot of alternatives in the form of trams and busses (and to a certain extend, trains), which take pressure of the subway. rate of biking is actually low compared to other cities because the public transport system is so good (and cheap).

so, some guesses as to why the ny subway system is so much worse:

* age: 1904 vs. 1976 - not sure if there's much of a difference as stations, trains and tracks have to be renewed periodically anyway. * density: population density is almost trice as high, but actual ridership scales linearly with the rest * travel distance in a randomized environment with choke points: if you'd assume that entry and exit stations are randomly distributed and the average travel distance is thus 4 times as long, the risk of encountering a malfunction is 4 times as high - and it takes just one to fuck your timetable up. not sure how likely that is, as, i guess, travels tend not to be randomly distributed in real life (i.e. you'll more likely choose a job that's closer to home). * budget: the big question here. is the ny subway public transport system 4 times as expensive as the viennese one? do they employ 4 times as many people? do they have the same level of machinery maintenance?

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#129

Post by tokyoguy »

CydeWeys wrote: post #116
berbec wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So NYC has 7x the number of stations for 5x the number of riders?

The New York City subway system is old, one of the first in the world. It's not built to modern standards; in a lot of places it was built by cut-and-cover, which means excavating the entire route along the subway and then rebuilding the road essentially as a roof above the subway line. As a result of this lineage it also has quite frequent stops, which are easy to put in when the subway is just a stairway's height b…

not sure what your point was. Tokyo has several subways of a similar styl yet they manage to maintain them, renew, and rebuild while the train is running and stations are in use

Re: The Subway Is So Late, It’s Making New Yorkers Early

#130

Post by CydeWeys »

tokyoguy wrote: post #129
CydeWeys wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York City subway system is old, one of the first in the world. It's not built to modern standards; in a lot of places it was built by cut-and-cover, which means excavating the entire route along the subway and then rebuilding the road essentially as a roof above the subway line. As a result of this lineage it also has quite frequent stops, which are easy to put in when the subway is just a stairway's height b…

not sure what your point was. Tokyo has several subways of a similar styl yet they manage to maintain them, renew, and rebuild while the train is running and stations are in use

The point was to explain why the NYC subway system has a relatively high number of stations, in direct reply to someone who was asking why the NYC subway system has a relatively high number of stations. I'm not sure what your point is though.
Post reply on HN