[jpalawaga]

The quality is not suspect. It is one of the world’s few 24/7 systems, and there are many capital improvements happening constantly. For example, making more stations accessible and improving switching equipment to improve reliability and volume.

This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.

[Invictus0]

The MTA is billions in the red because it overpays the union workers and fails to commercialize the stations

[amanaplanacanal]

You may not realize this, but the roads are also in the red. All transportation is subsidized out of taxes.

[Invictus0]

You may not realize this, but there are numerous rail systems around the world that are not subsidized and are in fact profitable. See Japan, for instance

[lmm]

Almost all rail in Japan is subsidized, directly and indirectly. Yes the single line that is the Tokaido Shinkansen is immensely profitable; even then, JR Central does not pay market-rate interest on even the portion of the construction debt that was not absorbed by the government.

[jakelazaroff]

I don't want our public infrastructure to be profitable; I want it to be ubiquitous and frequent.

[Analemma_]

This is not true: Japan's rail systems are profitable on a cash-accounting basis (e.g. fares add up to more than day-to-day operating costs), but not if you include the immense cost of building the rail itself. When Japan privatized its rail, part of the privatization agreement included the government assuming most of the debts from construction, so the private entities wouldn't have them on their books. If you were to include these costs, Japan's private rails wouldn't even be close to profitable.

[lmm]

The MTA does not overpay when you compare to other employers in central NYC. It's an extremely expensive city due to housing policy failures.

As for commercialising the stations, does the MTA try to do so and fail, or are they forbidden from doing so effectively (often by the same people who are pushing the narrative that there is something wrong with the organisation)?

[jjj123]

I simply do not care if my public services are “in the red”. Let’s make them entirely in the red, please.

[rayiner]

The point is that the MTA is deeply in the red even though it still charges significant fares. Meanwhile, systems like the London Tube manage to recover at least their operating costs without charging fares that are much if at all higher.

[maxldn]

According to a quick search the nyc subway is $2.90 rising to $3 next year. This is comparable to, but slightly less than a zone 1 off peak ticket in London at £2.70. Most journeys are more expensive (on the train, busses are pretty cheap here)

[kmeisthax]

If you're a car-owning Long Island or upstate suburbanite who occasionally commutes into Manhattan, the MTA is a god damned marvel compared to what would be available to you in other cities.

If you live anywhere in Brooklyn or Queens, the MTA is an inconvenience that constantly reminds you that the spirit of Robert Moses haunts your city to the present day, and that he really, really would like you to ride a private vehicle. Those boroughs are littered with coverage and frequency gaps that can turn a 40 minute car ride into a 2 hour subway ride. And god help you if you ever need to take a bus.

The capital improvements you mention are improvements on the margins. The MTA needs to engage in a radical rethink of NYC metro area transit. There needs to be radial lines - plural - crossing through Brooklyn and Queens at regular intervals to move as much traffic as possible out of Manhattan. The IBX is a good start, but it should also cross through Staten Island and the Bronx. Queenslink should absolutely be built[0], the N/W should extend to LaGuardia Airport, Utica Ave needs a subway line, and the subway in general should extend through Nassau County and Yonkers. Nassau and Suffolk counties need way more north-south rail[1] than they currently have (which is zero) and the same probably could be said for the service areas of MNR.

The bad part of government is not that it can't run a successful transit service. Actually, government is very good at taking a politically popular service and preserving it[2]. But this comes with a cost: extreme conservatism. You see, our government also happens to have a military that is obsessed with roads; and they pay a 900% subsidy to highway projects. So even states that like transit are hard-pressed to actually fund coverage improvements because it's capital inefficient to build anything that isn't a road. And private institutions building their own rail or transit services will just get absolutely crushed by the road subsidy making driving the only good option. So, government bad, actually, but not for the reason you think.

Also, you're replying to someone talking about NYC in particular. Politics in this area are notoriously corrupt; NJ had a mayor who literally closed a bridge to punish people who didn't vote for him. LIRR in particular has a labor scandal every decade or so. And don't forget, Trump was a NY real estate guy before he decided to tear apart America's political fabric.

[0] In fact, it's kind of absurd they didn't do this when they initially switched the Far Rockaway line over from LIRR to subway service!

[1] This would actually be a good opportunity for light rail, unlike the MTA's initial idea of making the IBX a light rail line

[2] See also: Amtrak.

[bfeynman]

The quality is most definitely suspect for how much revenue it brings it and how poorly its allocated. MTA has been full of cronyism and corruption for years and the cycle of kickbacks. Yes, its a complicated service, however you cannot deny the lack of transparency and ineptitude leaves the service in a much worse place than it currently could be. People can understand price increases when it translates to service.