[chimeracoder]

> Mass transit has to operate at 5 minute intervals (so that you are waiting at most 10 to 15 minutes in the event of a missed connection).

Which is not only possible, but quite feasible. Upgrading to provide six-minute service 24/7 would only require a one-time investment of $300M, because it is projected to raise enough revenue to pay for itself in the long term.

Unfortunately the current governor is trying to cut transit funding again with her most recent budget proposal, so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[marcinzm]

I'm not convinced it'd pay for itself since maintenance still needs to be done so it's not really 6 minutes 24/7. The 7 train in theory runs on weekends and in theory runs fairly often. In practice it's down every other weekend for I think 5+ years now. The MTA does not have a good track record of timely maintenance and also seems to not care much about long term downtime (ie: like their original proposal for a 15 month closure of the L line).

[chimeracoder]

> The MTA does not have a good track record of timely maintenance

A big part of that is because the MTA has been starved of funding for fifteen years now, to the point where they've had to substitute capital funds for operating funds in an effort to keep the lights on. Maintenance becomes more expensive when it's perpetually deferred - and it just became even more expensive because Hochul's inexplicable last-minute flop in June caused S&P to downgrade the MTA's credit rating, which means all future bonded capital projects will have to waste even more money on higher interest payments.

> (ie: like their original proposal for a 15 month closure of the L line).

That closure was intended to fix damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, and to bolster the tunnels against future climate disasters. The decision to forego the full maintenance (made unilaterally by then-Governor Cuomo as a political move) just kicked the can down the road.

[bob_theslob646]

You're conveniently forgetting out the nuance of the MTA. You do recall that the top person in the world for Transit quit because of the bureaucracy there, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43561378

[chimeracoder]

> You're conveniently forgetting out the nuance of the MTA. You do recall that the top person in the world for Transit quit because of the bureaucracy there, right?

Byford quit because of Andrew Cuomo, the then-governor, not because of bureaucracy within the MTA. This was widely reported even before his resignation was official, but was confirmed explicitly later on[0].

> To use a transit analogy, Byford fled the MTA because he felt like he had been tied to the tracks while a train driven by Andrew Cuomo cut his legs off, Kramer reported

Which is my point: the governing authorities make political decisions to starve the MTA of funding or cancel capital projects at the last minute, which harms the MTA in the long run and creates many of the problems that people end up blaming the MTA for.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/exclusive-andy-byford-m...

[marcinzm]

Sure. My point is that cannot magically assume all of that will go away in the future when making forecasts on the impact of changes.