Gothamist: MTA Delays Improvements Linked to Fare Hike

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:07:21 -0500

#15 That's not true in Japan, at least...but we're jackasses in terms of politeness and willingness to pay for transit, so... Keep in mind that these are also larger companies, which run banks and department stores too. Corporate culture is much different over there. Examples: JR East JR West Hankyu Hanshin Having ridden all of them, the fares were more than reasonable, the schedules strictly on time, and the rides smooth and uneventful (except for the rare suicide jumper).

grapesodey

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:29:42 -0500

true, there are anomalies - amtrak being one of them. but we won't get started on the problems with that one! my comment is more appropriate for rapid transit and suburban rail, really.

TKaisen

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:09:37 -0500

@ bottomless chips: a private company would never run a transit agency because it is a deficit operation by default. the only reason they are able to operate is because of government subsidies. Not necessarily true. Amtrak runs at a deficit because it runs trains over routes no one cares about. If there are ten people on the line from Chicago to Vegas, they probably shouldn't run the train. They have to, though, or people complain. A true private entity probably wouldn't care.

Steven

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:02:42 -0500

The MTA is an corrupt agency, but the problem is the US government doesn't support public transportation like they do with highways. Amtrak is sufficing because President Bush keeps cutting back funding money for them.

grapesodey

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:22:51 -0500

@ bottomless chips: a private company would never run a transit agency because it is a deficit operation by default. the only reason they are able to operate is because of government subsidies. even with the fare hike, the amount you pay for your trip on the subway is a fraction of what it actually costs an agency (let's just say the mta) to provide you with that trip. if transit agencies priced the trips for what they actually cost, we would not be able to afford them. agencies are forced to raise fares because the federal policies and procedures that govern the distribution of transportation funding disproportionately favor automobile/road/highway improvements. that's where the real problem is. if our systems were funded appropriately, we'd have much better service. note: i don't work for the mta, nor am i saying it is run to the best of its ability. i just think that the root of these issues is beyond the mta, and any other agency for that matter.

AHT

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:37:53 -0500

Sucks to be all the people eminent domain'd for the 2nd Ave Subway. Ten bucks says they were booted out for nothing.

Think twice

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:17:14 -0500

Re #7: Yes. They should update the old Dual Contracts model, but this time no artificial price ceiling; the operators need to stay profitable.

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:15:06 -0500

Matty, I mean double the number of express tracks--as in new construction, dig deeper...do more to make this stuff actually useful! Doing more with less was never a good model for transit, especially if we are to keep up our alphabet soup system.

matty

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:38:26 -0500

how does one "double express tracks" without widening the right of way? Make a multilevel train?

XxSuntoucherxX

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:19:43 -0500

So..... Who's up for a rate hike next year!?

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:25:12 -0500

#7 Who knows...personally I'd love to see a private takeover of the MTA, but people would bitch and whine. #8 Sure, At the very least, fix up Queens Boulevard and 4th Avenue in Brooklyn...some of the worst congestion happens there. For Queens blvd, double the express tracks all the way to Van Wyck so that you can have E and F trains running simultaneously. For 4th ave, I'd have a seperate platform for the D at 36th and Pacific, and rework the tracks and add a new platform at DeKalb so that there's a dedicated 6th ave and a Bdwy platform. I think Lexington Avenue could also use a pair of seperate express tracks, so the 5 trains don't clog up the 4 at Bowling Green. I realize a lot of this is a pipe dream, but that's because there's not enough initiative nor funds to achieve these really basic fixes. There's a lot more that can be done, really, and I could go on and on.

EastRiver

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:57:28 -0500

Not to be critical nivek but can you be a little more descriptive? Where in the current system would you put more track and platforms?

Bottomless Chips

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:54:48 -0500

When will people realize that government can't do things as well as private industry?

Tgirl

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:54:24 -0500

MTA - Mismanaged Transportation Authority

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:34:15 -0500

Er, #3.

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:32:02 -0500

#4 If you were to look at the current traffic flow for the subway system and compare it to the rest of the world, it's just a horrible plan; you can alleviate that (albeit quite expensively) by building the extra track and platforms we so desperately need. Another solution is to build a few new platforms and tracks at major stations and reroute lines such that we don't have any overlap, which will piss off plenty of people, but would fix things up pretty well. I don't think any of us will live to see a day when our subway runs truly on time (as in give or take a few seconds), or makes any sense logistically.

EricRoberts

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:17:51 -0500

@nivek - redundant track?

Dan Dickinson

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:10:14 -0500

This is my surprised face.

nivek

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:07:31 -0500

We need more redundant track and better signal systems...not more traffic...