Redundancy

I'm in NYC for a few days, and over the weekend it got a bit confusing to take the subway because an awful lot of routes had been re-routed for the purpose of track maintenance. Confusing, but still doable -- if you followed the signs and were willing to put up with perhaps a bit of a hassle, you could get where you wanted to go.

That highlights one of the advantages an extensive rail system like the NYC Subway has over a small one like Metro in DC -- the proliferation of lines and existence of separate express and local tracks on many of them creates redundancies in many parts of the system and makes it possible to shut some sections down without causing the entire network to crash. DC, by contrast, is essentially operating with no margin for error so problems anywhere near the middle of the city spill over and create huge problems for the whole system.

Comments

I love the NYC city subway, but the only reason it has so many 'redundancies' is because most of it was built by two private companies competing for business. Works okay except that there are two different track gauges, requiring different sized cars that don't run on the other track. But yeah, the DC metro sucks.

Posted by BF | April 28, 2008 11:33 AM

This is too happy of a view. Most of the work done on the weekends in NYC is done in other places at night, usually between 1 and 5am. For most people that's more convenient. Of course it's not more convenient for night owls and some others but the buses can still run and at night there's not much traffic. Many of the lines are not re-routed but just don't run- you have to go quite out of your way. The signs are often quite unclear. It's a nightmare for tourists. I'd basically rather see the MTA give up the pretense of having a 24 hour system and actually be able to get somewhere on the weekend. (Why it's better to shut down the L line every weekend for a month and replace it during the day w/ a bus rather than shut it down at night and have a bus then is a mystery to me, for example.)

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | April 28, 2008 11:45 AM

Who rides the subway between 1am and 5am? Just take a cab, there's no traffic then.

Posted by TH | April 28, 2008 11:56 AM

Why it's better to shut down the L line every weekend for a month and replace it during the day w/ a bus rather than shut it down at night and have a bus then is a mystery to me, for example.

Shutting down the L is difficult at any time because there's no reasonable alternative for much of its route.

Posted by Peter | April 28, 2008 11:59 AM

Who rides the subway between 1am and 5am? Just take a cab, there's no traffic then.

Cheap drunks who live in Brooklyn, mostly.

Posted by modulo myself | April 28, 2008 12:02 PM

You're right about the redundancies -- as they apply to Manhattan. The outer boroughs are a different matter. Especially if you live in a part of Brooklyn locked in to the F line. Especially when each weekend there's ongoing extensive repair between Seventh Avenue in Park Slope and the Windsor Terrace-Kensington stations.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | April 28, 2008 12:04 PM

you been out if NYC so long you need to reestablish your new yorker cred?

I have one word for you: rain.

But then again, I don't know what happens when it rains in dc.

The mta may as well be the ministry of silly walks with what they accomplish. 39 months to replace 8 escalators? Seriously?

Posted by phil | April 28, 2008 12:06 PM

I'm also fairly certain that people leaving a ballgame at Shea or Yankee Stadium don't have to wait half an hour in the rain for the opportunity to enter the subway platform.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 28, 2008 12:14 PM

I'm also fairly certain that people leaving a ballgame at Shea or Yankee Stadium don't have to wait half an hour in the rain for the opportunity to enter the subway platform.

Walk to Capitol South. If you live on the Blue or Orange line you won't even have to change at L'Enfant.

Posted by roac | April 28, 2008 12:21 PM

Who rides the subway between 1am and 5am? Just take a cab, there's no traffic then.

Cheap drunks who live in Brooklyn, mostly.

Ah, memories...

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 28, 2008 12:53 PM

There is a big engineering programme in London too (£10bn=$20bn worth). They are closing some of the lines early, and sometimes on weekends, but I think they are keeping it open during rush hour. As big as the network is it gets completely maxed out in rush hour.

They can't switch the stock between the different lines in London, though I don't think it is because of development by different companies: the older, higher lines (such as the circle) have much bigger tunnels and take older stock to match. The newer deeper lines (like the Northern) have smaller tunnels and correspondingly smaller trains.

Even on the lines where the stock is fairly interchangeable, they couldn't swap them without causing much confusion. All the maps and signs and even the colour scheme of the carriages is colour coordinated. I would be surprised if these kinds of considerations didn't apply in NYC too.

I have a young nephew with quite a passion for trains. It is funny the things that engage boys, eh.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 28, 2008 1:01 PM

DC, by contrast, is essentially operating with no margin for error so problems anywhere near the middle of the city spill over and create huge problems for the whole system.

If by "system" you mean "line." I can't recall too many instances of the whole Metro SYSTEM being screwed up at once. But yeah, problems with a train at Union Station will screw things up all the way to the end of the red line, and it's a pain.

I still think it's a great system, by and large. I'm going on 10 years with no car in DC and I have relatively few complaints.

Posted by Jake H. | April 28, 2008 1:03 PM

As a New Yorker who regularly visits D.C., I have to say that I really like the Metro system. Its definitely cleaner, more enjoyable to travel on, and easier to comprehend.

I understand the NYC subway system just fine, but I've been using it for over a decade. The D.C. Metro, by contrast, is pretty easy, even for a first-time user or tourist.

Posted by Trigger | April 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Speaking of the L train---three of us were taking the bus to 6th Ave from Ave B yesterday. I knew the L wasn't running, because I was out on Saturday around the station and saw the signs (I also caught a glimpse of a 'shuttle bus'). Not only was there a lack of notification, but there were an insufficient number of buses to account for all the L riders bounced off the train. We battled our way off the bus--both exits were blocked as subway riders entered the bus from the rear exit.

This is the problem with subway repair on weekends: there is no notice and the alternative provided is inadequate. Those who do not ride routinely get screwed.

Isn't the problem with the Metro the fact that it does not go anywhere?

Posted by LeeNYC | April 28, 2008 2:20 PM

Three things:

1. As an L.A. resident, I was wondering what visitors who've come to L.A. in recent years and used the Metro Rail system thought of it. It still doesn't go enough places, but it goes a lot more places than it did just a few years ago. More lines and stations are under construction and opening up in the next couple of years, too. But anyway, ,i> if you're a non-resident and you've used it, what do you think?

2. I visited D.C. for the first time last year and ended up in some sort of perfectly wrong situation that made taking the Metro impractical. We were staying in Alexandria for a conference my wife was attending but weren't within walking distance of a station, and had a car anyway to go on longer excursions. I discovered that there is no way to park at the stations on weekdays without also buying a metro card. Add the cost of parking to the fairly pricey day passes, and it was actually cheaper for the two of us to drive into D.C. even if we couldn't find street parking and had to pay parking garage prices. The system seemed to be set up either for commuters who would get a lot of use out of the metro cards (and be able to purchase them), or for visitors staying in D.C. itself and walking, although the price differential for lodging in D.C. (as opposed to Alexandria) was greater than the price of parking there.

3. I'm surprised Mixner hasn't chimed in yet.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 28, 2008 2:56 PM

Three things:

1. As an L.A. resident, I was wondering what visitors who've come to L.A. in recent years and used the Metro Rail system thought of it. It still doesn't go enough places, but it goes a lot more places than it did just a few years ago. More lines and stations are under construction and opening up in the next couple of years, too. But anyway, ,i> if you're a non-resident and you've used it, what do you think?

2. I visited D.C. for the first time last year and ended up in some sort of perfectly wrong situation that made taking the Metro impractical. We were staying in Alexandria for a conference my wife was attending but weren't within walking distance of a station, and had a car anyway to go on longer excursions. I discovered that there is no way to park at the stations on weekdays without also buying a metro card. Add the cost of parking to the fairly pricey day passes, and it was actually cheaper for the two of us to drive into D.C. even if we couldn't find street parking and had to pay parking garage prices. The system seemed to be set up either for commuters who would get a lot of use out of the metro cards (and be able to purchase them), or for visitors staying in D.C. itself and walking, although the price differential for lodging in D.C. (as opposed to Alexandria) was greater than the price of parking there.

3. I'm surprised Mixner hasn't chimed in yet.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 28, 2008 2:58 PM

I moved to New York in the mid-80s and have always relied on the subway. There are plenty of things to complain about with the subway (try waiting for a train in Times Square in mid-August when it's 95 degrees with 90% humidity outside and at least ten degrees warmer on the train platform). But basically I think it's a great system for all it's faults. You can get places relatively fast and you don't need to own a car so it's a big money saver.

Posted by evan500 | April 28, 2008 3:14 PM

As an L.A. resident, I was wondering what visitors who've come to L.A. in recent years and used the Metro Rail system thought of it. It still doesn't go enough places, but it goes a lot more places than it did just a few years ago. More lines and stations are under construction and opening up in the next couple of years, too. But anyway, ,i> if you're a non-resident and you've used it, what do you think?
Didn't take the local metro, but I flew into LAX, took the newish FlyAwayBus down to Union St, and hopped on whatever the commuter Amtrak is called there and it was very easy/convenient compared to East coast transit systems, but took a hell of a lot longer solely because of the retarded distances involved in each step. The bus was super comfortable, though, and I could totally see living in LA and taking a combo of that and a local subway line if I lived convenient to it instead of taking a car all the way and paying to park. It's not much faster thanks to the bus fraction of the route, but you can read or whatever so long as the bus fraction is comfortable.

Posted by Zach | April 28, 2008 4:34 PM

Redundancy is what makes public transportation usable, period. The more transfers you have to make the more important it is. When public transportation administrators are charged with making public transportation more efficient, of course, the first thing they do is try to eliminate redundancy.

Didn't the redundancy in New York transit come from having started out as multiple privately owned systems?

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 28, 2008 4:51 PM

Redundancy is what makes public transportation usable, period. The more transfers you have to make the more important it is. When public transportation administrators are charged with making public transportation more efficient, of course, the first thing they do is try to eliminate redundancy.

Didn't the redundancy in New York transit come from having started out as multiple privately owned systems?

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 28, 2008 4:54 PM

Didn't the redundancy in New York transit come from having started out as multiple privately owned systems?

Some of it, yes.

Posted by Thlayli | April 28, 2008 6:36 PM

Most of the work done on the weekends in NYC is done in other places at night, usually between 1 and 5am... It's a nightmare for tourists. I'd basically rather see the MTA give up the pretense of having a 24 hour system and actually be able to get somewhere on the weekend. (Why it's better to shut down the L line every weekend for a month and replace it during the day w/ a bus rather than shut it down at night and have a bus then is a mystery to me, for example.)

Where were you when the L was frequently shut down between 1 and 5am? I'll tell you where I was: trying to stay awake on the J train, taking an hour longer to get home from work, and walking anxiously home in the middle of the night from the (somewhat) sketchy neighborhood where the nearest stop was.

Who rides the subway between 1am and 5am? Just take a cab, there's no traffic then.

Shift workers and other people with nontraditional work hours, for whom frequent cab rides from Manhattan to Brooklyn would b an unmanageable expense. I'm going to resist the temptation to make light of inconveniencing tourists - they are important to the economy of any place that attracts them - but so are shift workers. I take the L home to Brooklyn past midnight on weekdays regularly, and I'm never, ever wanting for company on the train.

Posted by cerebrocrat | April 28, 2008 7:29 PM

L train L train L train. Do only hipsters read this blog ??

Posted by will | April 28, 2008 11:57 PM