Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

MTR Admiralty

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MTR Admiralty

  1. Welcome, have a nice stay
  2. If you want old maps, check Fulton Street on the SB. I went there yesterday and grabbed them. Who knows when I could sell them 20 years later to someone who wants to see that the and the actually existed.
  3. I'm not saying that ALL are state owned. Because I know that some are partially privatised and some are actually owned by the government, such as the RATP/SNCF network. Also comparing Europe to the US is comparing apples to oranges. Politics and priorities in your locale are so much different than our politics and priorities. Our politics and priorities are so complex, one must have to study or research about it. I only know a little about American politics and how it governs. Most European nation states are actually the size of many US states, don't you agree? So it is easier to control and also to give money. Most European states (such as England and France) have a unitary form of government, meaning the central government is most supreme. Only Germany and a few other European countries operate on a federal system similar to that of the United States. In the countries that operate on a unitary system, money/legislation goes directly to the city or what not. In federal systems, the central government and the local governments co-exist and issue laws on shared jurisdiction. That is the case in America. If a state doesn't like the ruling of the federal government, it could challenge the legislation in Supreme Court. Now what has this got to do with transit: simple, the United States federal government controls 50 states, with each state almost the size of a European country. Note that in the United States, regional jurisdictions are known as "STATES" and not provinces. Thus signifying that each state has sovereignty over its own jurisdiction. Which thus goes back to American federalism. Since it controls 50 states, it is not easy to allocate funds. Appropriation bills come from the House of Representatives because each state has an amount of representatives that pend on the population, meaning these people answer back to their own district, rather than the state as a whole. Appropriation bills, like all other proposed legislation, are discussed on the floor. However, they get created in congressional committees, usually a group of congresspeople (FROM DIFFERENT STATES) on a certain topic: in appropriations, it would be the appropriations committee. There is also the sub-committee, where the committee is broken into smaller fragments based on different issues. So the topics get more scruntinised and more delved down. So, for kicks, there is the transportation sub-committee in the appropriations committee of the US House of Representatives. In each committee or sub-committee, the members come from different parts of the country. Not all members of the transportation sub-committee are from New York. Nor is a majority of them. Thus you will have congress members from New York, Michigan, Oklahoma, California, Oregon, Texas, South Carolina etc... and those congress members answer to their DISTRICT, rather than the STATE. So the person from New York may be representing Utica County, rather than Flushing, NY. And the needs of every single county in every state in this country are different. A county in a rural environment would want better roads to transport goods. An urban congressional district like Flushing would want more money for mass transit. So hence, you have competition from all around. And even if all members in that sub-committee are from urban environments (which is unlikely to happen), they would most likely want to seek money for competing mass transit projects. Hence, the situation in politics is not the same in America. And thus these projects, when money is appropriated for transit projects nation-wide, there is a list of priorities. As in, which deserves the spotlight here. Would the Fed give money to a city to upgrade its rolling stock on an existing system or a city that desperately needs to construct a new light rail line? Even when Fed money is not needed, there is still the question of: is buying the most technologically advanced cars at a very high price worth it? And you also have the question of: would they be compatible with the existing signalling system? the existing infrastructure? Many things are taken into consideration, besides the cost. Bare in mind, our system is more than a century old. And I know pretty well, that your statement to refute mine would be the Parisien one or the Berlin one: but I tell you this, we are much more complex than the Parisien system and Berliner one combined and during two decades of the last century, this entire system fell into neglect and Fed money that was needed, was allocated to building highways instead. Keep this in mind. As for investments: the transit corporations that I was referring to, make investments on a variety of things. They also build and operate different transit lines OUTSIDE of their locale. For example, MTR which is based in Hong Kong operates Melbourne's suburban rail network and shares the stake with Deutsch Bahn in operating the London Overground. Now if you're going to talk about Alstom, which is a builder, and Airbus which is an air company, you are comparing apples to oranges when we are discussing about rail. Also, it's not about which economic model is best: capitalism or socialism, it's about how things are done. Even in a socialist model, wherein the government controls the economic aspects, if things are not done properly, they would mess up. The same with capitalism, if things don't get done the right way, it's still fail.
  4. Ha. The heartland of the once very socially conservative has yielded to some of the most socially liberal people of this country.
  5. I got a notice on my phone that there were shocks felt here on said day. They happen. If there was an actual quake here, I would be surprised.
  6. Thanks FreshPondRoadStation, this is going up for Monday's TransitFail. The Jizz Trains. LOL!!!
  7. I have to say this, but: THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID Exactly.. MINI-CONDOMS? Unless the kids have congenital venereal disease or something, they don't need condoms anyway. What is there to contain in the condoms? Giving them to the middle schoolers would make sense. A first grader? Jesus. Wait this is Massachusetts. Only in Massachusetts... *shakes head*
  8. @Citaro, quite frankly, back a hundred years ago, your statement wouldn't be correct at all: America WAS ahead of everyone in rail transportation (well, maybe not England). In order to really understand why things are in America, you have to look at American politics, society and economy and prioritisation. Oh yes, we do have antiquidated transportation systems compared to the ones in the "Old World", but in other matters, America is still pretty advanced. The main disadvantage about Washingtonian politics is the fact that we like to drag out legislation in Congress. Floor debates, filibusters etc... and that leaves little room for other things. Of course, the legislation actually gets discussed in the Congressional committees before they are presented to the floor, but since the members of Congress have to run for re-election and what not, periodically, and legislation is often dragged on and off, and there's partisan politics, little can be prioritised in American government. And you need federal money for many civil projects. And everyone wants the money. Pork barrel is what everyone wants. And there's a certain amount of money allotted for legislative spending. And all of that spending is distributed to all 50 states. The state can give away money. But states must control their own budgets and each state is responsible for the welfare of all of its counties. New York State is responsible for all of its territory from Buffalo to Suffolk. Sure it could pay off everything to build a new subway line or upgrade the existing network, but would there be enough money for Syracuse or Rochester to use? How about education? States cannot fall into deficit (according to my AP Government instructor) Even when the money gets to the projects, they go to the agency responsible. And the agency gives it to the contractors. The contractors hire the workers who build the lines or the vehicles. And remember, the money that is given is the estimated budget for the project. Since there is a set amount of money for all 50 states, it's not easy to ask for more money "just in case something goes wrong". And things can happen: material costs can rise and what not... labour costs... accidents... and it adds up to the bill. As for why we don't have spanking new cars... again, it depends on the bill and everything. New York can get the most advanced cars possible, but if they are too expensive, why not get a less technologically advanced car? You have a set number of dollars for the project (from the fed, the state, the city, the agency itself, from contributions from the private sector if any), you cannot allocate the majority of the money to something when you need dollars for other things such as station and property aquisition. Remember, the MTA is basically a bureaucracy. It answers to the state government. It's not the same as other networks around the world (such as the MTR) which are largely private corporations which can OWN real estate (entire housing units, shopping centres etc...) and invest and have a ticker on the stock market. These networks have other sources of revenue, so they can have more money to purchase more advanced equipment. So again, we can get all the best looking - best designed - best performing cars ever, but can WE afford them? And also, even if we can afford the cars, are they technically compatible with the rest of the system? What is the cost to maintain them? Keep in mind, we ought to maintain the existing infrastructure as well. There are so many factors as to why it is unlikely for us to buy these cars from the way I see it. Yes we want them badly, so do I. But I see reality as well.
  9. It will be what the M10 was when it went all the way to BPC. It's just too long and prone to delays.
  10. I could see the B39 getting revived for that reason. Less likely the B51. I think though, that the MTA might provide a special bus running from Willy B Terminal to Essex or Allen, similar to the one that runs from 14th Street/8th Ave to WTC because the formerly used the PATH elevators at WTC and those were taken OOS. That bus in on-demand. If anything, the MTA might run something like that rather reinstating the B39.
  11. No, I said between 168th and 145th.
  12. Wow that's something to see! The last time in the area (on a M6), I remember seeing the Flexibles.
  13. Nice job! I wonder what they would do with that Viking, now that it's off the X51.
  14. A hurricane to the Gulf would be a double edged sword.
  15. If those people want to jump, they ought to do it somewhere else. At least consider the people who are living and their commutes workbound and homebound. And it's really messed up for those people between Grand Central and Queensboro Plaza because, first of all the is two tracked here and there isn't that much of a supplemental service in that sector. Were shuttle buses used during this time, because they ought to.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.