NYC Subway, Bus Services Have Entered 'Death Spiral,' Experts Say (theguardian.com) 456
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) warned last week that without a major infusion of cash, [New York City's subway and bus services] will have to drastically cut service or increase fares on the system that carries millions of New Yorkers around the city. The system's financial straits have gotten worse in part because it has fewer riders, and is collecting less money in fares. Expected passenger revenue over a five-year period has dropped by $485 million since July.
"They've entered this death spiral," said Benjamin Kabak, who runs the transit website Second Avenue Sagas. "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service." The authority is proposing a fare hike that would take effect in March. One option would raise the basic fare for a ride to $3 from the current $2.75. Another option would leave the base fare the same but increase the cost of monthly passes and eliminate bonuses for riders. They are also proposing $41 million a year in service cuts, mainly increasing the time between trains and buses on some routes. And, if approved, the plan would delay the launch of faster bus routes. The proposed cuts "will still leave the MTA with massive deficits, expected to hit nearly $1 billion a year by 2022," the report says. "To tackle those deficits, officials say they would have to cut service more drastically, or raise fares by an additional 15%."
"They've entered this death spiral," said Benjamin Kabak, who runs the transit website Second Avenue Sagas. "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service." The authority is proposing a fare hike that would take effect in March. One option would raise the basic fare for a ride to $3 from the current $2.75. Another option would leave the base fare the same but increase the cost of monthly passes and eliminate bonuses for riders. They are also proposing $41 million a year in service cuts, mainly increasing the time between trains and buses on some routes. And, if approved, the plan would delay the launch of faster bus routes. The proposed cuts "will still leave the MTA with massive deficits, expected to hit nearly $1 billion a year by 2022," the report says. "To tackle those deficits, officials say they would have to cut service more drastically, or raise fares by an additional 15%."
1.73 BILLION Subway Trips in 2017 (Score:5, Insightful)
Itâ(TM)s a bit disenguous to say that people ARENâ(TM)T riding New York transit. 2017 had 1.73 BILLION subway boardings alone.
The problem comes with ridehailing companies. While there are plenty of criticisms to be had about the medallion system, it did keep more private automobiles off the road and keep more people on transit than Uber or Lyft whose use has been directly correlated with reduced transit use nationwide.
As unpopular as transit is in much of the nation, when you get SO MANY people crunched into the same space, youâ(TM)ve simply got to ensure people donâ(TM)t drive or else the pollution, road risk, and quality of life simply ranks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Four billion dollars UNACCOUNTED FOR in one just one year. MTA embezzles too much. End of story.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I said this above, but ridesharing is currently heavily VC subsidised which won't last beyond Uber's exit strategy, whatever that it.
But we're the richest country in the world...! (Score:3)
"They've entered this death spiral," said Benjamin Kabak, who runs the transit website Second Avenue Sagas. "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service."
This is in the most "wealthy" country in the world! Forget the fact that our debt now exceeds the GDP - at 105% of GDP (at least).
In the meantime, our leaders haven't forgotten how to foment [costly] mayhem abroad. Sad!
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, our leaders haven't forgotten how to foment [costly] mayhem abroad. Sad!
Imperialism rarely benefits the average Joe, and especially the poor Joe. It is however great for the elites and for the (very) rich Joes.
Already a death spiral (Score:3)
When it already can actually costs $5.00 or more each way depending on where you are just to commute to work each day at a job that may pay $10/hour, it is already at an unsustainable cost to those who would need or use it most. Raising fairs any more will simply guarantee empty trains and busses.
Re:Already a death spiral (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already a death spiral (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising fairs any more will simply guarantee empty trains and busses.
That's why it's a death spiral. Higher fares mean less riders which means higher fares and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Bull Shit. Seriously. What, you want people riding for free? Who is to pay maintenance to the tracks and cars? Who is to pay for police protection both on the trains and at the stations. You are an idiot. It isn't free, and 25 cents is not an outrageous increase.
Not only does Beijing have a much cleaner, more efficient, and more prolific subway system than NYC, but it also only costs $0.25 per ride. I think NYC would be much nicer to visit if they had more frequent subway service and cleaner stations. I know my friends who live there would appreciate that, too. One of my friends finds that a 60 minute bicycle ride from Brooklyn to Manhattan is much less stressful and often faster than taking the train because there are so many service disruptions on MTA. His bi
What is the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many city transport systems make a profit?
It is perfectly normal for subways to only get a fraction of their income from ticket sales. And for governments to fund the system from taxes, just like the roads.
What is wrong with the NYC and state governments that they don't want to fund a transport system worthy of a great city?
Re: (Score:2)
"What is wrong with the NYC and state governments that they don't want to fund a transport system worthy of a great city?"
Look into it. The problem is obvious.
Re:What is the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, gee, read up a bit on the philosophies of NYC government leadership. Or, for a shortcut, it seems to me that they do not value competence or performance, but rather they seem to prefer to punish contrary thought, spend taxpayer money on unnecessary or actually harmful purposes, and as this article sort of points out, fail to deliver the services both necessary for a well functioning city, and those reserved to the city itself to the exclusion of private vendors.
NYC residents and visitors should be hounding their government to do what they both claim is theirs to do (maintain transit systems) and is necessary, even critical.
And to be fair this is the result of decades of neglect. Plenty of blame for previous administrations, if they prefer to lament the situation instead of fixing it.
Re: (Score:3)
How many city transport systems make a profit? It is perfectly normal for subways to only get a fraction of their income from ticket sales. And for governments to fund the system from taxes, just like the roads.
What is wrong with the NYC and state governments that they don't want to fund a transport system worthy of a great city?
Why not raise rates to whatever works, and then subsidize whoever you think we should be subsidizing to ride it (give them taxpayer paid gifts of passes or whatever)?
Wouldn't that be less regressive?
Welcome Friends! (Score:2)
-Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Pensions & union contracts don't help. (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd that the article fails to mention the core economics fundamentals at issue here, such as the stifling burden of union pensions for retired MTA workers. It also fails to note the core management issues, like union contracts prohibiting: a) firing employees for incompetence, or b) initiating merit-based pay increases as an incentive to improve performance. Failing infrastructure is a consequence of incompetent planning, management & maintenance, while failing finances is a consequence of entrenched expenditure largess. The article addresses neither of these concerns.
It also strikes me as peculiar that former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has recently donated $1.8 billion (!) to Johns Hopkins University—a private university in Baltimore, Maryland and his alma mater—but he has offered no financial assistance to his beloved city's core transportation system. It makes one wonder just how committed he is to fixing his city's financial & governance issues and/or core infrastructure problems. It's almost as if he prefers to leave those problems unaddressed so he can campaign to fix them in his next run for political office, while taking a substantial tax deduction for a donation to a private institution. Or perhaps he's just angling to become President of Johns Hopkins University? Or perhaps I'm just being cynical? *smirk*
Re: (Score:3)
No, you are just being stupid. That donation is a one time deal, not an ongoing expense like public transportation. The basic problem is that the public transportation being run like a business means that it must be taxed. That means the public would have to pay for its use of the roads and other infrastructure. Coincidentally, that's not unlike what's happening now with fares, think of them as a business tax. If that isn't enough to cover it, then they'll be raising prices which means fewer people riding i
Re: (Score:3)
Why would he throw money at a cooperation which will only waste it?
Re:Pensions & union contracts don't help. (Score:5, Informative)
To add this this...
How excessive staffing, little competition, generous contracts and archaic rules dramatically inflate capital costs for transit in New York. [nytimes.com]
An accountant discovered the discrepancy while reviewing the budget for new train platforms under Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan.
The budget showed that 900 workers were being paid to dig caverns for the platforms as part of a 3.5-mile tunnel connecting the historic station to the Long Island Rail Road. But the accountant could only identify about 700 jobs that needed to be done, according to three project supervisors. Officials could not find any reason for the other 200 people to be there.
“Nobody knew what those people were doing, if they were doing anything,” said Michael Horodniceanu, who was then the head of construction at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs transit in New York.
That is peanuts. Comapred to politician action (Score:5, Informative)
That and what follows is what killed your public transit.
How about doing a root cause analysis? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary:
"The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service."
The solution to this problem isn't increasing fares or reducing services.
It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
Yes, but the "rectifying" part costs a bunch of money. Hence the need for additional funds.
What they're saying is that the system is already in a death spiral. It hasn't had enough funding to repair and modernize itself, which has caused it to become less reliable, which has hurt ridership, which reduces funding, which means they become less reliable, which hurts ridership, which reduces funding... and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary:
"The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service."
The solution to this problem isn't increasing fares or reducing services.
It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
My friend stopped taking NYC subway because there are constant service interruptions and there's no way to know when you'll get where you're trying to go. According to him, most of those service interruptions are caused by people jumping on the tracks, requiring medical attention on the train, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
NY State is also essentially one-party. NYC isn't going to elect Republican representatives to the statehouse or vote for a Republican governor. How can anyone be incentivized to solve any problems in NY state or NYC?
Re: (Score:3)
NY State is also essentially one-party
Only in name. Some non-NYC Democrats decided they'd have more power by allying with the Republicans in the state senate. So they did, giving the Republicans control of the chamber despite the Democratic majority.
(Btw, this just changed in the last election, because enough Republicans and breakaway Democrats lost to make this plan no longer work)
How can anyone be incentivized to solve any problems in NY state or NYC?
The Democrats in the legislature wanted to solve this problem years ago by stopping deferred maintenance. Republicans arbitrarily decided it cost too much. And s
Worst line in a long time (Score:2)
"Expected passenger revenue over a five-year period has dropped by $485 million since July. "
WTH does this even mean?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a five-year estimate before July. July happened. The five-year estimate in July was $485 million lower than it was before July.
1) Something was taken into account in July that wasn't taken into account prior to July.
2) That difference resulted in a $485 million reduction in expectations.
3) The expectation changed.
If you need anything else translated from English into English, I'll help as much as I feel like.
Raising fares isn't the solution (Score:2)
The solution is probably investing into more efficient trains. Look at what happened to flight tickets and airline incomes after the introduction of the 787 Dreamliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to imagine (Score:3)
Fair taxation will solve the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
The public transit will spread the cost around its ridership. Taxis and cars will spread it among its users. If this fair system of rent is collected, then we can let free market decide the cost and the transit systems will become profitable.
Transit companies cannot raise prices to become profitable because the private cars and taxis are taking the roads for free, emitting more pollution per passenger for free. Make them ALL play by the same rule, then we can depend on free markets.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to factor in transportation density. A bus will carry far more people than the cars that require the same amount of space. Don't like publc transport? Then cycle. I see large numbers of cyclists filling the gaps between the cars (better density) here in London, and they're faster than surface and underground transportation.
Taxes or pollution/congestion charges targetting less desirable road users could also help fund the transit system and encourage people on to more desirable forms of
Re: (Score:2)
Same way, use IPass like identification and number plate readers and calculate the square-foot-minutes occupied by the vehicle. Tax them exactly the same amount per square-foot-minute. Give absolutely no special breaks for the buses.
You will see hue a
How do you afford public transportation? (Score:3)
You just pay for it.
Subsidied company in trouble? (Score:2, Insightful)
The subway runs ~100 trains and has nearly 1.8B riders every year and is heavily subsidized as well. They collect more than twice in tax-subsidies than fares and have more than $30B in debt. The real price of the subway should thus be ~$6.
The first problem is labor unions:
Average cost per year per unionized worker for the transit system: $140,000 - a lot of people in NYC make a lot less than that.
The second problem is mismanagement:
None of the managers want to challenge the unions and billions of dollars di
Ban Private Cars from Manhattan (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
60 Minutes (Score:3)
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Informative)
The term "death spiral" is specific. It refers to a tipping point where your price goes past the optimum on supply/demand, such that raising prices means less overall money once people substitute alternatives, or simply do without.
In this case, people have clearly been doing just that in NYC, as total ridership has been dropping. Raising fares is unlikely to increase that, right? Cutting routes won't increase riders either, right?
It's fine to be skeptical of some internet article, but do read the MTA's own report. [mta.info]
Plan is balanced through 2019 using "one-shots," and the deficits for 2020, 2021 and 2022 have increased to $510 million, $816 million and $991 million, respectively
It doesn't look good.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Transit 'pays for itself' by making cities like New York possible. Without a transit system, businesses would move out to somewhere that their employees can get to for work .
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. Ask Oklahoma. Or Pittsburg.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Transit pays for itself by keeping pollution out of your stupid lungs.
Also it pays for itself by allowing NYC to function. Traffic is bad enough already. If everyone had to drive to work, it would be a disaster.
Saying that it needs taxpayer money doesn't negate that. There are tons of companies and rich people who benefit from having the capability to bring workers and customers into their locations, and the fact that traffic flows allows them to get shipments in and out. Those rich people and companies should contribute to the transportation infrastructure, but they're not going to willingly, out of the goodness of their heart.
So you have taxes. There's nothing inherently bad about taxes. The fact that public transportation is subsidized by taxes is not a sign that it's not doing a good job, or that it's not 100% worth the money spent on it.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Because forcing people to use run-down and broken public transportation doesn't fix the problem of a systematic, long-term lack of investment in the transportation infrastructure. What fixes that is more money. Where that money comes from used to be the economic engine of the middle class, but that's pretty much gone. Where did the money go? To the 1%. So if we need money to fix problems, that's where it's going to have to come from.
If the rich had been content to be rich, life would go on as usual. But they weren't content with that. They needed to have it all while everyone else got pretty much nothing. Right now, the top 1% richest people in the US own 35% of the wealth [wikipedia.org]. If you look at the top 5% of the richest people in the US, they have 62% of the wealth in the country. That's absurd. And the bottom 40% of people, the bottom half of what used to be the middle class and the poor, own less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
40% of our country collectively owns 1% of the wealth of the whole country. I get that you've got yours and fuck everyone else, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. It's not "soaking the rich" when they're so wealthy they don't know what to do with it, and we literally can't get any more money out of 40% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was economical and a better way to travel then people would be willing to pay market rates (what it costs to operate) in order to use it. Most times they are not. You see it in New York, San Francisco - all over. I'd agree with your premise - Raise the rates. Raise them until it can pay for itself. See if it still works for people. If it does wonderful. It might not though.
Excellent idea. In the same vein, let's also:
Then we can truly see what is more "economical" and whether people will be "willing to pay market rates". Let's go for it!
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of all that billing? (Score:2)
I can't help but think that it's actually more efficient to use taxes to fund transit. Installing ALL THAT infrastructure to collect tolls is going to be expensive too.
Think about it, tracking a gazillion micropayments has got to be more difficult and costly than taxing people once per year. While it may shift the cost to be more squarely on users, it'll cost society more as a whole. The micropayment system and the administration of it might be so high that even people who "pay more than their share" and
Re: (Score:3)
If you are driving an internal combustion engine you are already paying taxes from the moment you start your engine.
If you're in California you're paying 58 cents per gallon in taxes.
No idea how you are going to tax electric cars the same way. Tax electricity even more ?
Sad thing is I can see that happening, it's a pretty good way no one ever has the means to do a startup in their garage ever again.
Re:Can't wait (Score:4)
Eliminate every single cent of tax funding for all roads, streets, highways and freeways. Make them pay for themselves. Put tolls on every Interstate, and every other freeway and highway. Charge people the minute they pull out of their driveway. No paved road without users paying for it directly. No use of roads at all, unless people are paying for it directly.
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
If everyone switch to an electric car to avoid the gas tax, then at least we will solve the pollution problem and we could then tax by the distance driven.
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to do that is not having tolls on every road (way to expensive to maintain and administer) but to have a much higher gas tax. You drive more? You pay more. Gas price should be at least doubled in the USA.
I'm not arguing with the benefit of a gas tax here, just trying to point out that people tend to complain about subsidies for public transit without realizing how much subsidizing of private transit there is.
Btw a gas tax isn't a perfect way of getting "drive more, pay more" - I can theoretically drive a subcompact that gets 60 mpg a lot more than an SUV or light truck that gets 15 mpg and still pay less in gas (and gas tax). Of course a truck is doing more damage to the road than a subcompact, so the quest
Re: (Score:3)
Add to that list:
-- A lot of the money we spend via the Pentagon 'effin around in the Middle East is also a barely hidden oil price subsidy. Let's add a Keeping The Middle East Safe For The Nicest Vicious Dictators Tax on our gasoline.
We are robbing our general funds to the tune of trillions of dollars. Public transit is not going to look so crazy when ALL the hidden subsidies are paid overtly, and the price at the pump heads towards $10 a gallon.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, perhaps Bezos will make the trains run on time.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he should have said "isn't working"
The system *is* working every day.
The economic frame is different but that's changeable, like the characterization death spiral.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he should have said "isn't working"? Did you even read the article? Two words: Death Spiral. And like all proper liberals, the proposed solution is to raise taxes. Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Did you? The proposed solution is to raise fares. Unless you equate that to a tax. They could probably support it with a subsidy or something but the article doesn't mention that. Is it a public service though or a private one? Without mass transit a place like NY will grind to a halt. You think traffic is bad there now? Maybe even make it free funded by a few dollars extra on everyone's tax but that would probably make half of you literally shit a brick and you'd rather watch it fall then complain about th
Re:Does NOT work (Score:5, Insightful)
The "profit" of a public transport system for the public is not money but having a transport system that takes pressure from your already congested roads.
Not every revenue is nickles and dimes.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The only problem of public transport is everyone expecting it to be profitable. If it is supposed to retain usability and at least a minimum of attractiveness in terms of both service and price, it just can't be profitable in the long run. To be and stay an affordable and usable means of transportation, it has to be publicly financed, and generously so. It's really that simple.
Reducing its attractiveness further in order to cut losses will just make it even less attractive, as TFA correctly said.
Re: (Score:3)
When the NYC Transit system cuts down useless staff like having an operator and a conductor on every train (unlike the rest of the world, who run things just fine with one person per train), then there might be a reason to believe there is some sort of cash crunch there. Until then, it's obvious their solution to every "problem" is to ask for subsidies and not ever consider how they can actually save money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait why is that? Because you say so?
Why should people who don't use it pay for it? Why can't fares just be raised until they cover the costs. If you say because min wage workers can't than afford to get to work. My response is GOOD! That means employers would not be able to hire people for minimum wage; they will have to pay them more. The mistake is thinking that subsidizing things like housing and transport is a beneficent for the poor; its not its corporate welfare in disguise. All its really doi
Re: (Score:2)
That means employers would not be able to hire people for minimum wage; they will have to pay them more.
HAHAHAHA
No, the response will be for them to ride a bike, walk, or just live closer.
Re: (Score:2)
Living closer is no option since they probably already can barely afford living on the outskirts, so whatever alternative they will find means more traffic on the roads and more congested roads during rush hours.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. Rather than the employer pay their employees more, they'll just expect their employees to make unreasonable sacrifices.
Re: (Score:2)
Why you should pay for it? Because you don't want the through-roads that you use to get home turn into the biggest parking lot on the planet every day and your trip home takes 4 hours instead of 30 minutes.
Because one thing is certain, people who cannot use public transport will instead have to rely on private. And if a town can't afford to maintain public transport, they sure as hell can't afford buying premium land in downtown to pave and make new roads.
Your trip home would take longer. Every single day t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridesharing is currently heavily VC subsidised. The current situation won't last beyond Uber's exit strategy, whatever that is.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't wait to hear form all the public transit apologists
Well in that case I don't want to disappoint you. In Germany public transport is ubiquitous and works well (even though the trains sometimes do have a problem with punctuality). But it is expensive. My annual ticket to get around my metro area costs almost a thousand dollars. A monthly ticket costs 80$. A single ride, 4$. AFAIK this is pretty expensive on the international scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeesh! Yes, it is. Annual tickets where I am currently cost exactly 365 Euros ("the whole town for an euro a day" is the marketing gag behind it), a fare is 2.20. Don't know about monthly tickets, but they're fairly affordable, too.
What town is this, Munich?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Munich, but it is a similarly affluent, smaller town in the southwest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What seems to be the case in NYC is that the program is not only being mismanaged, but, the fares are too low. The Article says they're considering raising the basic rate by 25 cents, to 3.00. That's ridiculously cheap - and doesn't reflect t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Article says they're considering raising the basic rate by 25 cents, to 3.00. That's ridiculously cheap - and doesn't reflect the actual cost of travel by private vehicle for the same journey which would be at least double that amount.
There's zero reason for a good public transit system to not cost virtually equivalent price to private transit in a large city
Uh, no. There's zero reason for a good public transit system to cost any more than it needs to.
Sure, you're correct that the fare is cheaper than owning, insuring, maintaining, and fueling a private vehicle. Duh. That's the whole point of a bus. Cheaper people * miles / dollar. The fact that you think the cost should be nearly equivalent indicates your acceptance of the beauracrat's view. No, it does not need to be a similar cost nor should there be any goal of increasing the cost until it is. This j
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this comment marked troll?
I am a European left-wing public transportation enthousiast, and I completely agree with the question/premise.
NY has an incredibly high and dense population. The bedrock makes tunneling easy, and the lack of space makes undeground transportation a sensible option. Fares of $2.75 are not ridiculously cheap (e.g. Tokyo fares start at $1.50; London at $3.50; paris $2). So why aren't they making money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] gives an interesting overview of the profita
Re: (Score:2)
One example is the current signaling system. It is 60 - 80 years old [wikipedia.org]. It's highly inaccurate compared to more moderns systems, and if it needs to be repaired, parts are difficult/impossible to come by.
That, like so many things, needed money/time for maintenance/upgrades, but it was never allocated. Now the service has gotten so poor due to the lack of maintenance that the cost to be up to date is prohibitive, thus the spiral.
If the MTA were someone with diabetes health r
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Transit is infrastructure, so the illusion is in commercial expectations.
Private companies can do just fine, as long as there is competition and reasonable gov't regulation. Here in Taipei, public transit is pretty awesome. There are multiple private bus companies, but they all use a common price scheme set by the gov't. They have RFID cards [easycard.com.tw] which can be used for buses and the MRT, [wikipedia.org] and the card can also function as a cash-storage device, and can be used to buy stuff at any convenience store. With an additional registration process (essentially, they want your email address) the card can also be used to access the local bicycle-sharing program. [youbike.com.tw]
On top of that, taxis are ubiquitous and cheap -- again, privately run, but heavily regulated -- with a mix of large fleets and self-employed owner-operators. So even when the buses quit running (around 11pm) you can still get home from the pub at a very reasonable cost. I've never owned a car here, but I even gave up the motorcycle about 8~10 years ago (gave it to one of my employees) because I never used it, and it was always a hassle to find parking. Public transit is just too easy here.
So, no, I don't think that "commercial expectations" necessarily prevent the delivery of excellent service to the public. Nor do I think that gov't regulation is too burdensome on private enterprise.The same half-dozen bus companies have been serving Taipei since I first came here in 1990, and they're all still in business, and seem to be doing just fine, judging by how well they maintain and upgrade their buses.
This battle over funding the NYC subway has been brewing for quite a while, with Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Cuomo each pointing fingers at the other. And it was a big issue in the Dems' gubernatorial primary recently, as Cynthia Nixon accused Cuomo of failing to spend money that was appropriated (or something like that...) I don't know much about the NYC situation, but I'm quite certain that public transit is cool, because I use it every day.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to Taipei (and Kaohsiung) multiple times. The subway system is nice, but it's awfully easy to ignore that the first line opened in 1996. It's still new by major infrastructure standards. It's not really fair to just compare systems between Taipei and NYC. Public transit is good, important, and does indeed work, but it presents serious challenges to the public's appetite for investment in transit when those systems reach a point where they require massive injections of capital which happens much la
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, come to London then. The first, and the oldest (1863), and it works well. Yes, the Tube's a bit cramped by modern standards and they haven't been able to fit things like A/C on some of the lines, but visiting NYC and riding the subway there feels like a step back to the 1970s. Not quite as old, but go to Moscow and see another older system that works even better than London does. I think it's a fallacy claiming that the age of the system is the problem. But it is like software engineering, where if you don't take care of the technical debt in managable chunks as you go along, you end up drowning in broken unmaintainable shit and buggy hard to use product that users hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait 'til it gets old and maintenance becomes a real issue. Your public transport system is just about 20 years old, let's talk in another 10 years when trains start to fail and replacements would be required to retain a reliable schedule. Then we'll see whether private businesses are willing to "waste" money on new trains or whether they'll simply accept that some trains will run late. Or never.
Re:So raise the fares (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> The real question is why are the fares still $2.75?
My conspiratorial thought on the matter is, because it makes it a bit more difficult to use all the funds on your MetroCard. Basically they count on people discarding the residual balance and buying a new card they can charge an extra buck for.
Unless you're buying a new card for $6.50 ($5.50 balance plus $1 fee for the new card) any other default amount doesn't divide evenly, and the 5% discount you get when buying more credit makes the math even harde
Re: (Score:2)
Because we subsidize travel in this country, for right or wrong. We subsidize roads heavily for automobiles, which makes driving cheaper and creates sprawl. Then in order to encourage bus service, we have to subsidize that as well so it can compete with (subsidized) cars. We've been doing this for d
Re:So raise the fares (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main issue is that there are a lot of people living in the 5 boroughs who have been there all their life and are not the transient population that moved there for their 20s or even 30s who most likely are on the wealthier end of the spectrum (i.e. they appear fine to spend ridiculous amounts of money on rent and it is only increasing). The "lifers" of NYC have observed the cost of a 30-day metrocard go from $65 (circa 1998) to nearly double at $121 today. When you live in NYC, most people don't drive and completely rely on the bus/subway system MTA provides and thus is a necessity to get to work or school (yes, your high school might not be within walking distance or even the same borough and there is no school bus like the suburbs).
Subway ridership has increased over 35% in the same time frame [nyu.edu] of 1998-2018. During this time the MTA has mostly refreshed its rolling stock while doing some infrastructure improvements, which is good and obviously expensive. However, they've also reignited the 2nd Ave line work which is a major cost to the city and I suspect is the main financial drain and somewhat why it hasn't been explored in many decades. I can only imagine that it was started up again because someone ran a spreadsheet which showed that if they build this, they'll increase property values on the east side which means they can increase property taxes which means more revenue for the city. But how much of that is going back to the MTA?
I don't know the answers to this but I get the sense that budgets are somewhat getting driven by greed and the desire to further gentrify the boroughs rather than provide the best service for the people who have lived their all their lives. Simply saying "keep increasing the fare" is ignoring the needs of the majority of people that live in the city [straphangers.org] and won't move away after their few years of their "city living" experience.
(rant finished)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly you've never been to New York. Donald Trump born and bred.
Re: (Score:3)
New Yorkers are used to this... the MTA complains that they are on the brink of bankruptcy every time they ask for a toll increase. It helps them get the budget passed, I guess.
And why not fix rge problem? (Score:3)
The summary says ridership is diwn due to unreliable service.
The proposed solution is to raise rates and reduce service.
That does sound very New York, so I suppose it's not surprising. Here in Texas, if we had a problem caused by unreliable service we'd probably do something silly like fixing the service to make it more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Well golly, we could fund all sorts of things if we didn't fund the military...for awhile...until those nice Russian and Chinese discovered they could do whatever they wanted with U.S. trading partners, like shutting down trade with the U.S.
Re:What About... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well golly, we could fund all sorts of things if we didn't fund the military...for awhile...until those nice Russian and Chinese discovered they could do whatever they wanted with U.S. trading partners, like shutting down trade with the U.S.
That's like, total nonsense.
The US military can be easily 50% smaller and still way ahead of Russia and China. The problem with the American military-industrial complex is that it's not actually focused on defense and American military superiority, it's focused on making huge profits. It's been happy to rake in billions and billions of dollars for mostly or absolutely useless projects. When the Pentagon resists, bribing, er, sorry, lobbying members of Congress usually does wonders. There have been tons of examples of the military buying stuff it clearly says it doesn't want, keeping operational equipment they've wanted to retire, retiring operating equipment unnecessarily early in order to force purchases of replacements, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the MTA have their budget? They have quite the little government funded transportation empire now, which extends into rural New York and Connecticut thanks to Metro North.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. You'll find it in the NY state budget because the MTA is a state agency.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cars work because they have roads and intersections paid for by tax. And they have police making sure people follow the rules.
Without tax helping out your transportation needs, your car would be useless.
Re: (Score:3)
Cars work because:
I'm not exposed to everyone else in my car. If I want to play Fox News on the Sirius / XM all the way to wherever I'm going, I can, and don't have to annoy anyone else with it, nor be annoyed if they want to play hip-hop.
I can take things I might need with me, without having to carry them all over the place. If I want to have an extra coat or something, I can chuck it in the back seat, and if I don't need it, I can leave it there. If I do need it, like the asshat that turns down the
Re: (Score:2)
Thank heaven for Cuomo. He gets it.
What in the world are you smoking?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't be fine.
https://medium.com/@johnnyknoc... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I've watched Rudy do interviews lately. The guy has turned into a nut job. If he acted that way while he was mayor, I don't know how NYC survived. Bloomberg still seems to have his wits.
He's 74 and seems to have lost some of his mental sharpness.
I saw Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a recent interview and I thought she too seemed very frail and also mentally diminished. She's 85.
Getting old sucks, and I'm getting there fast.