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.
Check the prices for the Underground, and then come back
This has nothing to do with where the MTA receives it's revenue. What's being discussed is efficiency of the system.
I'll quote the relevant passage again:
Quote:
Other large cities’ transit systems operate far more efficiently. The London Underground, for example, outspans the New York subway—at 250 miles to New York’s 234—and offers more frequent service, with most lines running a train every three or four minutes, even during midday. Transport for London, the agency that runs the Underground, also operates bus service, with 9,549 buses—twice as many as the 4,451 vehicles owned by the MTA’s New York City Transit division. In fiscal year 2017–18, Transport for London spent £4.75 billion, or roughly $6.2 billion, to operate its subways and buses; New York City Transit spent $9.5 billion in 2017. Transportation writer Alon Levy calculates that New York spends $15.10 to move a subway car one mile, compared with London’s $9.30 and Paris’s $9.60.
Great speech, but it did not answer my question. More empty talk.
Just in case you missed the question, I'll repeat it:
"Can you provide an example of a subway system that covers the same size area for the same price and provides better service?"
If not, then it's just wind between the ears.
I will also reiterate - I said the MTA is not the greatest. Seems like when you have conversations with people on here they miss key points that you say, just to push their narrative.
You're either purposefully being obtuse or you're not understanding what's going on.
Whether the MTA receives it's revenue from ticket sales or another source of income makes absolutely zero difference. The MTA is spending the money. It's obviously getting the money somewhere. Where that money comes from makes no difference as to the level of service.
Your argument that the fare is "cheap" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't a case where the MTA doesn't have enough revenue to satisfy its needs. We've proven that comparable systems spend far less.
This is a case where the NYCTA spends ~50% more than it's closest counterpart (London) (9.5 billion v 6.2 billion) for a measurably worse level of service in almost all respects.
If the London Underground can operate as it does (with more miles of track and more buses) on $6.2 billion, why can't the NYCTA on $9.5 billion? That's the relevant question.
You're either purposefully being obtuse or you're not understanding what's going on.
Whether the MTA receives it's revenue from ticket sales or another source of income makes absolutely zero difference. The MTA is spending the money. It's obviously getting the money somewhere. Where that money comes from makes no difference as to the level of service.
Your argument that the fare is "cheap" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't a case where the MTA doesn't have enough revenue to satisfy its needs. We've proven that comparable systems spend far less.
This is a case where the NYCTA spends ~50% more than it's closest counterpart (London) (9.5 billion v 6.2 billion) for a measurably worse level of service in almost all respects.
If the London Underground can operate as it does (with more miles of track and more buses) on $6.2 billion, why can't the NYCTA on $9.5 billion? That's the relevant question.
Champagne taste, beer pockets
You and many others want London service for $2.75
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Got called out for blatantly stating wrong facts and now trolling to hide your ignorance?
The NYCTA spends 50% more than the London transportation authority for running fewer services. The fare of $2.75 is just one source of revenue obviously.
Got called out for blatantly stating wrong facts and now trolling to hide your ignorance?
The NYCTA spends 50% more than the London transportation authority for running fewer services. The fare of $2.75 is just one source of revenue obviously.
Who cares, like no other public transportation agency gets advertising money, etc
If London charged MTA prices, you think you would get the same level of service there? Dream on. You get what you pay for. You know why the express bus is more comfortable with no bums on it and its way cleaner? Cause you’re paying $6.50 per trip.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Who cares, like no other public transportation agency gets advertising money, etc
If London charged MTA prices, you think you would get the same level of service there? Dream on. You get what you pay for. You know why the express bus is more comfortable with no bums on it and its way cleaner? Cause you’re paying $6.50 per trip.
I hope for your sake that you're trolling and not completely misunderstanding the issue.
The NYCTA spends 50% more than the London transportation authority for running fewer services. The fare of $2.75 is just one source of revenue obviously.
I'm curious - where did you learn this?
New York’s underground subway system began in 1904. Over a century later, it is made up of 26 different subway routes on 9 different lines with a total of 468 individual stations. It spans across four of the five boroughs with a total of 229 miles of route track distance and 842 miles of track bed (most of New York’s system are three or four tracks across.) Transporting an average of 5 million passengers every weekday, the system carries over 1.6 billion people annually.
...The Tube is made up of 11 different subway lines with a total of 270 individual stations. 250 miles of track spread across the neighborhoods of London. An average weekday hosts 3 million passengers, bringing an annual total to around 1 billion patrons.
That's just trains. NYCT also operates regional trains, buses, and river transport like TFL. Interestingly enough, London subcontracts their bus service outside of the agency so you can't really credit TFL for running its own bus system.
And NYCT's regional train network - LIRR and Metro North encompasses many more stations than TFL's six lines (London Overground).
And, NYCT also operates bridges and tunnels on its own versus TFL which shares road responsibility with multiple agencies (I don't know if TFL maintains bridges and tunnels which is far costlier animal than roads alone).
I also know that NYCT has made substantial investments into accessibility for the disabled. The very nature of The Tube and it's deep underground tunnels makes accessibility an impossibility.
So actually TFL runs fewer services than NYCT...and does so at a higher cost to its riders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esacni
You're either purposefully being obtuse or you're not understanding what's going on.
Whether the MTA receives it's revenue from ticket sales or another source of income makes absolutely zero difference. The MTA is spending the money. It's obviously getting the money somewhere. Where that money comes from makes no difference as to the level of service.
It doesn't make a difference to whom? To you? You obviously have never been to an MTA fare increase meeting? You also don't consider the discounts that NYCT provides to seniors and disabled people which are substantial. If want to visit SI, the cost of the ferry for you is ZERO. I don't believe there is a similar program in London. So heavy heavy subsidies here in NYC.
Your argument that the fare is "cheap" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This isn't a case where the MTA doesn't have enough revenue to satisfy its needs. We've proven that comparable systems spend far less.
This is a case where the NYCTA spends ~50% more than it's closest counterpart (London) (9.5 billion v 6.2 billion) for a measurably worse level of service in almost all respects.
If the London Underground can operate as it does (with more miles of track and more buses) on $6.2 billion, why can't the NYCTA on $9.5 billion? That's the relevant question.
Sources of income are ALWAYS relevant to businesses AND public agencies. The NYCT willingly operates at a loss every year in order to subsidize mass transit. TFL is a "pay as you go" system which can run quite expensive depending on Peak vs Off-Peak and which zones you're traveling from and to. There is no other system in the world that I can think of that is as large as the NYCT and charges a flat rate. That alone, is a tremendous benefit for people in NYC.
Of course the downside is that the service is probably not as reliable as TFL. But you try living there and dealing with walking through narrow hallways, traversing up and down massive escalators, and being absolutely sandwiched on train cars that are a little over 6' in height. Don't be claustrophobic and living in London.
New York’s underground subway system began in 1904. Over a century later, it is made up of 26 different subway routes on 9 different lines with a total of 468 individual stations. It spans across four of the five boroughs with a total of 229 miles of route track distance and 842 miles of track bed (most of New York’s system are three or four tracks across.) Transporting an average of 5 million passengers every weekday, the system carries over 1.6 billion people annually.
...The Tube is made up of 11 different subway lines with a total of 270 individual stations. 250 miles of track spread across the neighborhoods of London. An average weekday hosts 3 million passengers, bringing an annual total to around 1 billion patrons.
That's just trains. NYCT also operates regional trains, buses, and river transport like TFL. Interestingly enough, London subcontracts their bus service outside of the agency so you can't really credit TFL for running its own bus system.
And NYCT's regional train network - LIRR and Metro North encompasses many more stations than TFL's six lines (London Overground).
And, NYCT also operates bridges and tunnels on its own versus TFL which shares road responsibility with multiple agencies (I don't know if TFL maintains bridges and tunnels which is far costlier animal than roads alone).
I also know that NYCT has made substantial investments into accessibility for the disabled. The very nature of The Tube and it's deep underground tunnels makes accessibility an impossibility.
So actually TFL runs fewer services than NYCT...and does so at a higher cost to its riders.
Did you and Seventh attend the same schools by any chance? Who will I trust more for the numbers concerning the NYCTA. You and Seventh or a researcher with a PhD in mathematics from Columbia?
For the third time. See below:
Quote:
Other large cities’ transit systems operate far more efficiently. The London Underground, for example, outspans the New York subway—at 250 miles to New York’s 234—and offers more frequent service, with most lines running a train every three or four minutes, even during midday. Transport for London, the agency that runs the Underground, also operates bus service, with 9,549 buses—twice as many as the 4,451 vehicles owned by the MTA’s New York City Transit division. In fiscal year 2017–18, Transport for London spent £4.75 billion, or roughly $6.2 billion, to operate its subways and buses; New York City Transit spent $9.5 billion in 2017. Transportation writer Alon Levy calculates that New York spends $15.10 to move a subway car one mile, compared with London’s $9.30 and Paris’s $9.60.
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.
