How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by Xorlev » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:21 PM UTC

zwischenzug wrote: post #119

flexie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s. Most airports, most of the interstate highway network, most subway systems, bridges, tunnels, and dams were built from the 1930s and on to the 1970s. The railroads are even older. And after that; Silence. It's like you didn't even care to maintain it. First time I arrived in America, I was taken aback by how old and run down everyt…

This was my experience of the US as well. Not only the state of the roads, but the poor quality of the buildings, and the incredible number of power cuts. It was more reminiscent to me of the third world than the richest country in the world.

US is a huge place, so experiences don’t generalize well. You’ll have to state the region and probably the city you visited for your statement to have any meaning.

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

#222

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

Froyoh wrote: post #193

mabbo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone in Toronto loves to complain about the TTC, but the few lines we have here are pretty reliable. We just need to expand the system further. The Eglinton line and the Finch LRT will help.

I'm quite shocked people think Toronto's transit system is on par with London

The assumption that Toronto is on par with London, NYC or other large metro areas is a common delusion of those living there.

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

#223

Post by kodablah » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #207

flexie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s. Most airports, most of the interstate highway network, most subway systems, bridges, tunnels, and dams were built from the 1930s and on to the 1970s. The railroads are even older. And after that; Silence. It's like you didn't even care to maintain it. First time I arrived in America, I was taken aback by how old and run down everyt…

Not generally like that in mug of Texas. Houston proper has some questionable roads — but that has been due to a series of mayors that are more interested in farmers markets and “pocket parks” than actually doing the dirty work of actually running a city. The state of Texas has great roads. Far better than anything you see in places like NY, NJ or other states with Byzantine labor agreements. I live in France now and…

> My point is that generalized statements about the American infrastructure aren’t generally fair since the US isn’t a monolithic organization

Very true, but I'd say when talking about roads, that goes for the state level in places like Texas and even down to the metropolitan level. Where I live, there are 75 mph high quality privately-managed roads close to terrible ones.

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

#224

Post by stult » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

flexie wrote: post #114

notmtaemployee wrote: post #38

The MTA's problems begin and end at a weak senior management unwilling to standup to Cuomo's frivolous micromanagement and a transit union unwilling to modernize. Politicians should be pushing for serious procurement and labor work rule reforms, otherwise the systemic managerial and operational deficiencies will ensure that the deterioration of service we see now will repeat it self in 5 to 10 years, regardless of ho…

When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s. Most airports, most of the interstate highway network, most subway systems, bridges, tunnels, and dams were built from the 1930s and on to the 1970s. The railroads are even older. And after that; Silence. It's like you didn't even care to maintain it. First time I arrived in America, I was taken aback by how old and run down everyt…

Well, you're ignoring massive swathes of infrastructure types. Containerization has led to a complete revamping of US ports during that period. The electrical infrastructure has been massively upgraded, including a huge decrease in coal fired plants. While passenger trains haven't been improved at all, freight train usage has grown rapidly and the already very extensive rail lines have been maintained (conflicting demands between passenger and freight being one of the major limitations on high speed rail). The entire internet was built during the period you specify. As was a nationwide cell network with nearly universal coverage in populated areas, despite a much larger area and lower population density than comparably developed European countries. The GPS constellation was deployed and opened up to the public. Automated banking and payment systems. Etc etc.

Not all infrastructure consists of roads, bridges, and tunnels.

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

#225

Post by jchrome » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

zwischenzug wrote: post #119

flexie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s. Most airports, most of the interstate highway network, most subway systems, bridges, tunnels, and dams were built from the 1930s and on to the 1970s. The railroads are even older. And after that; Silence. It's like you didn't even care to maintain it. First time I arrived in America, I was taken aback by how old and run down everyt…

This was my experience of the US as well. Not only the state of the roads, but the poor quality of the buildings, and the incredible number of power cuts. It was more reminiscent to me of the third world than the richest country in the world.

You've got to be more specific. I've lived in NYC for almost a decade and I think the power went out 3 times and that's always been due to a hurricane. Power cuts are not something I've had to deal with in any significant manner in anyplace I've lived in the USA (and I've lived all over).

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

#226

Post by DanielBMarkham » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #21

I don’t understand why American governments are so bad at providing public services. Money often isn’t it. The NY subway has an operating budget of $8 billion for about 1.7 billion riders per year ($4.7 per rider per year). The London Tube has an operating budget of (2.2 billion pounds—$3.5 billion pre-Brexit) for 1.4 billion riders ($2.5 per rider). The systems are in extremely similar cities, are almost exactly the…

I study how large groups of people work together towards goals for a living. Whenever there is a large org not meeting its goals or performing much worse than another large org in similar circumstances, I look at feedback loops.

What are the feedback loops involved? Are there consequences for poor performance? Are they the same? How often is feedback measured? Do the reward/punishment systems reflect the goals of the people paying for the org to operate?

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole here. Instead I leave it to the reader. It's not rocket science to figure out. I've worked in and around government bodies of all sizes (including some that I considered very well run) and the bad ones are all bad for most of the same few reasons.

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

#227

Post by Symbiote » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

Arnt wrote: post #186

tialaramex wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40tph is rarely achieved in practice, systems which are intended for 40tph usually actually end up running somewhere in the 30-36tph range as it basically just takes one little old lady being a bit slow or one tourist bag stuck in a door to ruin the synchronisation. Still 36tph basically already feels like there are trains "all the time" and passengers learn to just "let it go" as you would with an elevator - you kno…

Are there others that try to operate >30tph? Which ones? I've only travelled with one 30tph (two-minute) system, it was really relaxing. As you say, it felt as if the next train was coming immediately. Quite subjectively, it felt as if the wind pushed by next train could be felt while the previous train's lights were still visible in the tunnel.

The Victoria Line in London runs 36 tph. The Jubilee Line is 30, but will be 36 by 2019. The Central Line has 35tph in the morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line#Service_and_roll...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_line#Service_frequency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_line_(London_Undergrou...

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

#228

Post by kodablah » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:34 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #21

I don’t understand why American governments are so bad at providing public services. Money often isn’t it. The NY subway has an operating budget of $8 billion for about 1.7 billion riders per year ($4.7 per rider per year). The London Tube has an operating budget of (2.2 billion pounds—$3.5 billion pre-Brexit) for 1.4 billion riders ($2.5 per rider). The systems are in extremely similar cities, are almost exactly the…

Bit late here, but I'll give my opinionated answer anyways. The public sector is overall of lower human employee quality than the private sector. A high quality person that wants to get something done without a ton of red tape just doesn't stay in government work for the most part. It's not salary related or even money related, it's accountability related. Fixing that requires firing many entrenched people which will not happen. This is why many successful governments in the US task the private sector with building, maintaining, and sometimes even managing these projects. That has problems too, but in many cases at least it's done in reasonable time with reasonable quality or there is someone to hang.

Oh and I should mention large seemingly-private orgs that win all contracts, especially that are highly unionized without competition, are essentially government orgs and suffer the same issues.

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

#229

Post by countryqt30 » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #21

I don’t understand why American governments are so bad at providing public services. Money often isn’t it. The NY subway has an operating budget of $8 billion for about 1.7 billion riders per year ($4.7 per rider per year). The London Tube has an operating budget of (2.2 billion pounds—$3.5 billion pre-Brexit) for 1.4 billion riders ($2.5 per rider). The systems are in extremely similar cities, are almost exactly the…

Maybe this is too obvious, but might be true: MTA is not responsible for 1 city, it is responsible for 1 state. The London Tube is only responsible for 1 city.

I can imagine costs really skyrocket if you have to support the "long tail of people living in rural areas." London Tube doesn't have to get along with that issue.

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

#230

Post by Chathamization » Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 2:38 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #182

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…

I'm a total outsider to this (being European and all that), but could lack of vote-created change be due to lack of serious candidates who are not the "usual suspects"? If a position isn't worthwhile to hold unless exploited, only exploiters will step up. I don't know what kinds of offices are the issue wrt the MTA, but generally I have the impression that the USA could be better off with some elected offices less: a…

> I'm a total outsider to this (being European and all that), but could lack of vote-created change be due to lack of serious candidates who are not the "usual suspects"?

I doubt it, mostly because when good candidates run you still see pretty low turnout and the good candidates often lose (and with downballot races, even the few people who bothered to vote have a hard time remembering who they voted for, let alone why). And this kind of apathy is everywhere; it's not uncommon to see some nationally famous political writers who are extremely ignorant about major local elections and don't even seem to care about them. And when it leads to bad outcomes, many people see that as an excuse for even more apathy: "See? We don't have a choice, this is an oligarchy, it's impossible to change things by voting, why bother."

I think you have a decent point about fewer elected offices, but it's hard to make a blanket statement because it's very situational since elected offices vary a lot by state. The political parties themselves could also benefit from fewer elected officials, for what it's worth.