Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only question is, would NYC allow it to restructure (i.e. effectively break the union) to improve efficiency? We all know the answer to that.
The main problem with the MTA is it is massively inefficient and that is because it's a quasi-public agency. There is no incentive for the politicians to demand it be run in an efficient matter. It's become a massive jobs program for the undereducated.
The biggest thing they can do to fix the system is put cops all over on the platform during rush hour instead of those stupid monkeys waving flashlights that everyone ignores. If you hold the doors, you get arrested - simple as that.
Most of the delays are caused by people bum rushing packed trains or trying to squeeze where there's no space
Distance based fare would have a lot of political backlash. It would also require a major capital investment to retrofit the turnstiles to have people swipe both in and out of the subway system.
yes there would be a big backlash. With the planned phasing out the metrocards, it could be less costly to overhaul the whole turnstile technology...its all computerized anyway.
The biggest thing they can do to fix the system is put cops all over on the platform during rush hour instead of those stupid monkeys waving flashlights that everyone ignores. If you hold the doors, you get arrested - simple as that.
Most of the delays are caused by people bum rushing packed trains or trying to squeeze where there's no space
arresting people for holding doors? That will be popular with the public!
arresting people for holding doors? That will be popular with the public!
It's already an offense on the books, just need some will to enforce it. And yes, it will be popular I bet you'd see 99% of the people on the train clapping
There are plenty of businesses which rely on indirect government subsidies. Defense? Utilities? There are plenty more if we really take a deep dive into the subject.
Public transit can be run privately. It's no different than any other high CAPEX business. Private industry seems to run intensive CAPEX businesses just fine. In fact, the MTA would be a boon for private enterprise because it'd be a government sanctioned monopoly. The only question is, would NYC allow it to restructure (i.e. effectively break the union) to improve efficiency? We all know the answer to that.
The main problem with the MTA is it is massively inefficient and that is because it's a quasi-public agency. There is no incentive for the politicians to demand it be run in an efficient matter. It's become a massive jobs program for the undereducated.
I guarantee you that if they allow the private concern to break the union, there'll be businessmen BEGGING the city to run the subway system. They'd be lining up to kiss the mayor's ass. Some would probably even stroke his balls. Who wouldn't want to run a state sanctioned monopoly?
There is so much inefficiency not only relating to the workforce but alsooperationally. Do you think there's anyone at the MTA who seriously studies, using the latest statistical techniques and methods, trends in ridership on a line by line basis in order to implement efficiency? Most likely there's a person with that job description at the MTA but they probably have a HS diploma from the 70's. I'm just a simpleton, but I see operational stupidity all of the time in the system. Let's be real.
To say that this or that can never work with the NYC subway is sheer foolishness. The simple truth is that there is ample reason to believe that the system can be improved massively with the correct leadership and strategies in place. Furthermore, we have examples from numerous large metro areas which are doing a much better job.
What makes them so special?
Claiming that the MTA would never be able to raise capital at low rates is a non starter. Borrowing rates are an effect of the health of a business and industry. They are not the cause.
The other problem was historical. BMT (J, M, R, L, Z, N, Q) and IRT (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) were privately owned. The city built the IND (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) to compete with the private lines.
When the IRT and the BMT decided to build subways, the IRT built it's first subway (the 1 train from 145th Street to 42nd, the crosstown 42nd street shuttle and the Lexington Avenue line to city Hall) they built the tunnels to the standards of the existing elevated trains. The BMT decided to build to the same clearances as the commuter railroads. The IND was built to the same clearances as the commuter railroads. As a result the city was able to operationally MERGE the IND and the BMT, while the IRT has to remain separate operationally because the oldest parts of it's tunnels are too narrow to accommodate BMT/IND trains.
When the buses and trains were all owned by separate companies, there was no such thing as free transfer. The city when they took over the entire system merged the BMT/IND, and build transfers between additional stations. This alone was a big benefit to the public. For that matter, we now have free transfers between BUSES and SUBWAYS. A private company is motivated for profit, so by it's very nature some service would be eliminated, prices would go up, etc.
But look at the history of the city. From the very beginning the IRT and the BMT, when privately owned could not raise prices without city permission because of the contracts they signed with the city to be allowed to construct the subways.
There is no way any company could be guaranteed that the city would not interfere with pricing or other issues. Lastly the MTA has various contracts in place that courts would uphold, and this includes UNION contracts. The politics of NYC, NYS, and the US will not allow even a serious conversation on privatization.
And as you noted the MTA is a jobs programs. Government jobs disproportionately make up the middle class in this country and NYC is no different.
Companies need to adopt shifts instead of the same ol' 8-9am start time, unfortunately financial firms all have to be in before market opens.
Which is why lately I opt to work for companies outside of manhattan. Life improves so much when you don't have to take mass transit.
Agreed. Maybe the city and state can give them tax incentives to adopt more shift work. Some companies are more easily able to do this than others. Perhaps more jobs could be done from home as well, or at least partially be done from home in order to reduce the numbers of commuters.
Almost everything that plagues the disaster that is the MTA can be traced back to one thing: government. It bad my mind that people want to involve government in more, not less (eg college).
Any fare increases in the foreseeable future will 99% go to union pay, healthcare, and retirement costs. The system will not get any better - look at what a huge initiative it was just to add countdown clocks on platforms. It boggles my mind that there is govt push to add 'hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing' when infrastructure can't support the current demand. This is what happens when you try and socially engineer a city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
