Gothamist: Why Subway Delays Are Up This Year

Ceez

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:45:28 -0500

"Is there any data for average train times in 1970s and 80s that would be fascinating to see the comparison I bet even with these problems 2008 blows those numbers away" Considering how in the late 70's there was one derailment a week, police rode every train all day to stop crime, and Wall St bigwigs went to a newly-elected Governor Cuomo and told him that if he couldn't get the subway working so that employees made it to Wall St in time to start the trading day the firms would move to NJ, I believe that the 1970's made 2008 look like a picnic. "not sure how it could cost the MTA $6 per trip for riders-- the costs should largely be fixed costs, so increased ridership should result in higher revenue, no?" Increased ridership means increased service, more delays (hence more overtime), more wear and tear on equipment, more vandalism... "NYC might be one of the biggest subway system in the world but its the worst I've ever been on...the system seriously needs updates." Why do you talk like these are mutually exclusive? Sure, it must be easy to completely revamp a system in another city that was built less than 40 years ago and runs 4-5 dedicated lines. "How do you delay a train by more than six minutes by holding a door? At thirty seconds, one or more of your fellow passengers is likely to beat the snot out of you." On a line with trains every 2 minutes during rush hour the schedule is written so that FOR EXAMPLE train A picks up all the passengers at Grand Central. Two Minutes pass and Train B arrives at Grand Central. It is projected that 300 people are on the platform waiting. Two minutes later, train C arrives and picks up a fresh 300. So here we go. Train A arrives and takes all 300. Train B is at 86th ST and someone tries to squeeze into the car closest to the turnstile and the doors will not close. 30 seconds lost. Train gets to 59th and a bunch of kids running up from the local hold the doors for their friends. 30 more seconds. So train B arrives at Grand Central ONE WHOLE MINUTE LATE. Well, the 300 people who arrived on the platform are still waiting, WHILE 150 PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ON TRAIN C ARE THERE TOO. So you lose another 30 seconds at Grand Central. REPEAT for 14th, Brooklyn Bridge and Bowling Green and PRESTO your racking up minutes. BUT WAIT!! Your now 4 minutes late..Guess what? The train behind you cannot just pass you like you can on the highway so that guy with his bag in the door has delayed 4 or 5 trains. "Surprisingly, no one seemed to mention the effect incompetence has on delays. Obviously with the MTA, incompetence is a major factor." Please provide examples.

snowman

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:11:19 -0500

I pretty routinely much find myself cursing the MTA under my breath... Maybe privatization is the way to go...or maybe not. They definitely have tons of room to improve though.

Bottomless Chips

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:36:07 -0500

As my comment history will show, I firmly believe in the privatizing of the MTA more than anything else in this city.

ianmac47

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:24:44 -0500

Surprisingly, no one seemed to mention the effect incompetence has on delays. Obviously with the MTA, incompetence is a major factor.

tnturner

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:06:57 -0500

How about an increase in their advertising rates? These companies will pay anything.

jackdonaghy

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:39:33 -0500

No! If it were ever privatized (and this is very unlikely) we would face a significant increase (well over 100%). I could envision the new price being based upon the distance of our destination, like a regular RR. (i.e. a trip from Manhattan to Queens would cost more than a inter-borough trip). In addition to the price increases, who is to say that their would be improvements in service and conditions? Remember, the company would have all of the leverage, just like the MTA currently does. We have to use the system and are vulnerable to the conidtions.

Think twice

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:27:45 -0500

Privatize it. Re: #17 Amen.

TK

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:14:14 -0500

I would assume that subways systems act similar to natural monopolies. The high fixed costs get covered over time by decreasing expenses and economies of scale. The main problem with the MTA is that there is NO incentive to improve service or innovate. Because government/union officials dont get elected by being ahead of the curve no one wants to slow the gravy train (sorry for the pun). They do get paid (and elected) by creating bureaucracy and making sure every interest group gets a little piece of the pie.

Jerk Store

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:05:21 -0500

"It's because public transit is always subsidized by the government. There is no large scale transit system worldwide that makes a profit or run off of government spending. I read somewhere that it costs the MTA 6$ per trip for riders, while it only costs us 2$ or less. More riders = less revenue What the MTA needs is more governmen, in particular, federal, support." Point taken, but I think public transit operates with economies of scale. Each additional rider continues to bring in a steady clip of $2 (or whatever fraction of their unlimited card) per trip, but each new rider costs incrementally less once you get to a certain level of service. The greatest expense is paying personnel and getting the trains running at all, but with each new rider once a level of service has been established, the costs amount to whatever small amount of money is added to cleaning and whatever (if any) increase in power is needed to accomodate for their weight on the train. In theory, if the current MTA schedules are over capacity and they are unable to add extra services (like on the lex lines), the additional riders should be helping with the bottom line.

Gothamist_Cynic

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:54:39 -0500

It's because public transit is always subsidized by the government. There is no large scale transit system worldwide that makes a profit or run off of government spending. I read somewhere that it costs the MTA 6$ per trip for riders, while it only costs us 2$ or less. More riders = less revenue What the MTA needs is more governmen, in particular, federal, support. Um Tokyo says hi once again.

palestine

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:37:43 -0500

On the L every day. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. We are delayed because of train traffic ahead. Sweet.

Rocknrope

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:34:23 -0500

I can see how the holding doors can delay a train for several minutes. Six minutes is a long time, but I've seen it happen. One douchebag sticks his foot in the door, 30 seconds pass, the doors open. He gets in, and more people pile in behind him, holding the doors open. When all is said and done, you're at least 3 minutes in. This is especially the case around the rush hours.

ab_bklyn

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:31:33 -0500

Mike B., a small delay at one stop causes backups down the entire line. As the train is delayed at one stop, more riders line up at stations down the line, which means they take more time to get on the train, which means it delays the train further so that even MORE riders pile up at stations down the line, etc. etc. It's a vicious cycle.

cphu

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:29:07 -0500

NYC might be one of the biggest subway system in the world but its the worst I've ever been on...the system seriously needs updates.

Snoopy

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:26:45 -0500

Good point Mike B. But it appears track work is the big culprit. More night time work could ease a lot of that. It's dark down there so the workers really wouldn't know if it's night or day.

Mike B.

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:17:25 -0500

How do you delay a train by more than six minutes by holding a door? At thirty seconds, one or more of your fellow passengers is likely to beat the snot out of you.

RoDogg

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:10:39 -0500

So sex on the train doesn't cause delays? I believe that stat should be considered because I seen it a few times and believe it does have some kind of effect.

JRod5417

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:01:08 -0500

From what I understand, fares only account for a portion of the MTA's budget. The rest comes from from government subsidies.

eyekantspel

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:41:19 -0500

not sure how it could cost the MTA $6 per trip for riders-- the costs should largely be fixed costs, so increased ridership should result in higher revenue, no?

Alex

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:37:09 -0500

If ridership is up how come revenue is down. From what I understand there will be a fare hike next year whoo hoo. It's because public transit is always subsidized by the government. There is no large scale transit system worldwide that makes a profit or run off of government spending. I read somewhere that it costs the MTA 6$ per trip for riders, while it only costs us 2$ or less. More riders = less revenue What the MTA needs is more governmen, in particular, federal, support.

eyekantspel

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:27:07 -0500

they forgot the number 1 reason: The MTA sucks.

grooverider

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:07 -0500

I'm surprised "Signal Trouble" is so low on the list. Seems to be a consistent cause of delays... maybe its just my bad luck though :D

spiritross

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:14:20 -0500

Is there any data for average train times in 1970s and 80s that would be fascinating to see the comparison I bet even with these problems 2008 blows those numbers away

whantmoore

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:13:42 -0500

If ridership is up how come revenue is down. From what I understand there will be a fare hike next year whoo hoo.