Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Figbud t1_j6ecj55 wrote

I've gotten so used to the wifi in the subway being horribly unreliable that I forgot that the wifi in the busses was actually good

621

vegeta1418 t1_j6enfc0 wrote

Me too. I turn it off when I get on and use my phones internet

74

prinxe150 t1_j6fdvap wrote

I guess the telephone company charging them too much plus the cost of the equipment...lol

28

wutcnbrowndo4u t1_j6fjd9k wrote

> Even if you load the maps from the WiFi at LGA, chances are the map app will usually close by the time you get anywhere near where you're trying to go.

What do you mean by this? I did an around-the-world trip in 2015 without using SIM cards and it was pretty easy to get directions on Google Maps when I had a connection and follow them for arbitrarily long even after I lost the connection.

15

flightwaves OP t1_j6eaq77 wrote

>Transit officials said just 33,000 people used the Wi-Fi on buses during an average day. That’s about 2% of the 1.4 million bus riders the agency records per weekday.
MTA officials estimated the cut to Wi-Fi service on buses will save the agency $3.3 million every year.

It's nice to see them cost cutting for once. Lets tackle overtime abuse next shall we?

271

chale122 t1_j6f6rdz wrote

they're cost cutting to get more overtime

55

Korona123 t1_j6fvalj wrote

Seems like a big feature to cut for only 3 mil savings..

19

RyuNoKami t1_j6frwjs wrote

That's mta buses cutting wifi. Over time abuse is at the long island railroad. Good luck getting rid of amnenties over there.

17

damnatio_memoriae t1_j6l6bn7 wrote

OT abuse definitely happens with MTA. There was a group of MTA employees a few years ago who literally setup a man cave with couches, TV, video games, and beer in some hidden back room in one of the stations and they would go there and hangout while charging OT.

1

Blue387 t1_j6giorn wrote

I was one of those folks, taking the B63 bus here in Brooklyn. The B63 takes a long time from downtown Brooklyn to Bay Ridge and you also get lots of double parked cars and trucks. That bus wifi has been very good for checking emails and Reddit, etc.

5

scruffywarhorse t1_j6j11r9 wrote

It’s such bs. They need to cut costs, not services. They get 1.4 million bus riders per day That’s 3.85 daily revenue. So by cutting amenities on the bus and alienating foreign travelers. They are saving less than the amount they make in 1 day. though I think they exaggerated the hell out of their Wi-Fi bill.

They should just charge 8 dollars for it like they do on the airplane.

0

pton12 t1_j6ent5f wrote

But how else will the unhoused people who use the bus system as their shelter be able to catch up on their podcasts? /s

−51

mgundert87 t1_j6el8lu wrote

I wonder how the recorded usage was distributed across bus lines. Because I can imagine free WiFi being really useful for international visitors who take the bus from LGA.

261

whateverisok t1_j6ewv9b wrote

Super important point! Even if you load the maps from the WiFi at LGA, chances are the map app will usually close by the time you get anywhere near where you're trying to go.

You'd have to take screenshots of the directions (ie.: get off at this spot, walk to X street, take this numbered bus)

71

OverlordXenu t1_j6fdtdw wrote

it just totally confounds me that the europeans who have the money to come fly into nyc and be tourists here refuse to spend $30 on a data sim. i used to wait tables and there'd be so many of them trying to get on the wifi (which, fine, we have it) but, like fr? fr fr? you're going to spend thousands on a vacation and not budget for a sim card?

35

TheLongshanks t1_j6fkbwb wrote

It’s because Wi-Fi is freely available in their cities. It’s so ubiquitous it’s not considered that America, what is supposed to be a leading nation, doesn’t have public Wi-Fi that is easily available and reliable.

46

panzerxiii t1_j6fmcpf wrote

Most restaurants in Europe freely give out Wi-Fi too lmfao

The connectivity in Europe in my experience is just as good if not slightly worse than what we have in NYC. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

21

DifficultyNext7666 t1_j6fllxj wrote

What cities are these? Because I just use it at restaurants when in europe

19

Am-I-Cool-Yet t1_j6iiz0b wrote

Lol yup. Can’t remember one time where I found free wifi in multiple cities in Europe. Of course, this was back in 2014-2015…

1

drumsplease987 t1_j6fsxvd wrote

Ubiquitous free public Wi-fi? Where? That doesn’t make any sense, no one would have a data plan.

It’s not really a problem of technology or infrastructure. It’s the fact that in places where it’s more common to see budget, short-stay international travel, like Europe and SE Asia, businesses are equipped to accommodate people without data plans.

In America most citizens either don’t travel outside the country, or travel on a higher budget, so there’s not the same culture at home.

9

Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6hk6kn wrote

no they don't lmao. Europe is a whole ass continent with 700 million people, not a fantasy land where the streets are paved with social surfaces and infrastructure flows out of every fountain. grow up

4

cuteman t1_j6j4uc1 wrote

>It’s because Wi-Fi is freely available in their cities. It’s so ubiquitous it’s not considered that America, what is supposed to be a leading nation, doesn’t have public Wi-Fi that is easily available and reliable.

Yeah that's not true. If anything the US has lot more available free wifi.

You can't even use bathrooms without being a paying customer in a lot of Europe

1

that_dapper_llama t1_j6jh0tj wrote

Maybe in a few cities but city-wide free WiFi is quite rare in my experience and more often than not you just hop on a restaurant or Starbucks WiFi whenever I am in Europe.

1

kdg4 t1_j6liwlc wrote

But WiFi is so ubiquitous largely because cellular coverage is either terrible (in the case of the UK), expensive, or both (e.g Germany). Set one foot inside a building and I hope you enjoy 2G/EDGE (if you’re lucky) or no service at all.

Most US cities have good cellular coverage regardless of which network you choose, and pricing is reasonably competitive. Therefore, in my opinion the need for free WiFi just isn’t really there.

1

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6fe682 wrote

Some people don't think about that. I wouldn't be thinking about connecting to the internet while planning a vacation, but maybe that's just me.

23

OverlordXenu t1_j6fezqv wrote

really? every single person i know who has ever travelled outside of the US has made sure they have the ability to get directions, call Ubers, stay in touch with people… and i've known europeans who have done this, too.

but like your hotel booking is on there, your ability to get transit directions, to just get around in an unfamiliar place, coordinate with people you're meeting up with…

14

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6fgeso wrote

Perhaps it's different because I've only ever been to Canada and Mexico as far as international travel goes, but I've just never thought about it. I've always used the wifi at the hotel or restaurant to get what internet I need, and had numbers or whatever saved for whatever else I needed.

3

OverlordXenu t1_j6fo671 wrote

you didn't need directions or a map? i've been in nyc for years and i still need something like the maps app or citymapper to get around to places i don't go to regularily, though i have a bad sense of direction. before phones were common i used the maps, talked to people in info booths, and talked to strangers. got lost occasionally. never get lost when using my phone for directions. i wouldn't go back, personally, i'd spend the $50 on a SIM.

0

krazyb2 t1_j6gttpc wrote

One of the first things I do after I book my trip internationally is decide if i'm going to get a sim card or a wifi hotspot. It's literally the only way you can get directions, translations, communicate with airbnb, etc? I feel like it's just irresponsible not to do this?

−1

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6hm4q2 wrote

> It's literally the only way you can get directions, translations, communicate with airbnb, etc?

It's not though. You can download maps/have a physical map. You can hire a translator/learn the language/get a translation book. You don't need AirBnB, hotels and hostels exist and are very easy to spot. You speak like someone who's never lived without the internet. How do you think people did these things before the internet?

3

krazyb2 t1_j6hv1af wrote

Sure, you can do those things. But we do have the internet now. You do you, I’m just saying that sounds like a lot of trouble to go through to save 30$ on having connectivity. I lived long before the internet. Things were not easier. But, life isn’t about everything being easy and you’re free to do things the harder (and potentially more fun?) way if you’d like!

1

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6hy56j wrote

I'm not saying I do these things but the person I replied to said the internet was literally the only way to do those things.

1

joyousRock t1_j6j8xkt wrote

every time I've gone to Europe I did not have cellular data. used wifi and maps. not that hard at all, just requires thinking & planning

2

tiggat t1_j6fjgcb wrote

In Europe you can get wifi at pretty much every restaurant, so they expect it.

15

OverlordXenu t1_j6fo8r8 wrote

you can in nyc too but that doesn't help very much if you're trying to get from ocean hill (which had a shit load of airbnb's when i lived there) to times square.

6

Prestigious_Buy7875 t1_j6fvcvd wrote

Offline maps and caching exist in 2023

5

ljthefa t1_j6g8epf wrote

Before I travel out of the country I always download the area map, do most people not know this exists?

5

tiggat t1_j6fol2q wrote

It's not nearly as prevalent over here.

−1

Wise-Ad8988 t1_j6fi9z7 wrote

Also people taking the bus probably don’t have thousands to spend let alone extra $$ on expensive sims…

6

OverlordXenu t1_j6fnxx7 wrote

what? in europe unless you're ultra rich you're probably taking the train or the bus from the airport to the city center. that's just what middle and upper middle class europeans do. especially in nyc.

>probably don’t have thousands to spend

what do you think it costs to fly from europe or south america, get a hotel room or airbnb, and pay for food in nyc for a week's vacation? a family of 3 or 4 is spending thousands on airfare alone. that's sort of my point—it is expensive to be an international tourist in nyc.

11

perk11 t1_j6ghcu7 wrote

My phone made for Europe didn't work in the US after I bought a SIM. Y'all use different frequencies.

3

krazyb2 t1_j6gu1gd wrote

This is the reason I always buy a mobile hotspot. Keep a battery pack on you and the mobile hotspot and you're good to go. And everyone with you can use the hotspot too.

1

whateverisok t1_j6g1psa wrote

It's $30 which is small in the grand scheme of things, but it all adds up.

It's $30 for a SIM for one person's phone, which could also take 30ish minutes to get (have to show your ID/passport to get it).

You're also paying tips & taxes which you're not used to paying for every meal or purchase (since it's not included in prices), and either sneaking into a bar to use the restroom or buying a drink ($5-10) and then using the restroom instead of paying like €1 (pretty much $1 USD) to use a public one

1

utopian1992 t1_j6guglo wrote

Its not an excuse, but phone/data roaming is largely free throughout the EU, so there may be some who assume their service will work in the US

1

Patriquito t1_j6g0jqi wrote

Google maps allows you to select areas and download sections of their map to your device it must be updated every few months but it's completely free

10

whateverisok t1_j6g10us wrote

That doesn't really help or work with public transportation, especially timings since those are so dynamic

6

woo_hah t1_j6g4rpy wrote

Are international visitors (Canadians excluded) really arriving via LGA from other American cities or are they coming into JFK and EWR from their home countries?

8

I_GIVE_KIDS_MDMA t1_j6h21nx wrote

Thought about that too because there are almost no flights from/to LGA from anywhere other than Canada that would be international.

I've known international visitors on an extended stay in the US who flew city to city and used LGA for a domestic leg of their trip.

1

Royal-Mathematician2 t1_j6gpglf wrote

LGA is a domestic airport (except Canada) so not many international travelers

3

mgundert87 t1_j6iuw6b wrote

Wow, really? I had no idea, but I guess I don’t travel international that much. :D

1

23sigma t1_j6fb8mr wrote

I’d say most visitors who knows how to use their phone for directions for public transit would have paid for data for traveling.

−8

SexyEdMeese t1_j6fwxhi wrote

> Because I can imagine free WiFi being really useful for international visitors who take the bus from LGA.

If they have the money to fly here, they have the money to buy a sim or pay for Wifi.

−9

I_GIVE_KIDS_MDMA t1_j6h2a6n wrote

"If Americans have money to fly to Europe, they have money to buy water and ketchup, or pay for toilets" too.

Funny how these things never work out the way you think they should.

3

EagleFly_5 t1_j6ebmrr wrote

I don’t really take the bus often in NYC, but admittedly I forgot this was a feature, and only used this twice, even though nowadays prevalent 5G is reliable & fast anyways.

Still, it would be nice in the late 2020s/2030s to have (underground) subway WiFi/cell phone service coverage. Not only could it be useful in an emergency situation (or for individual needs), but you might never know in a time like this.

86

CrashTestDumby1984 t1_j6fs1nn wrote

I’m still pissed that when cell phones were first starting to be a thing, phone companies wanted to put receivers in the subway but the MTA said no because it would be “disruptive” to have people taking on their phones (as if there aren’t 15 other things far more disruptive and obnoxious)

13

terryjohnson16 t1_j6eu9nr wrote

But how many people actually knew their buses had free wifi? Plus only the new blue buses have wifi while the older white buses do not have wifi.

Plus some people also maybe feel like their usage were being tracked.

I rather use my carrier data since its unlimited and more secure.

The subway cell service has gotten unreliable recently. Maybe they doing upgrades for 5G but now my data wont load when using the subway network underground

Tourist will miss that free data though

81

whateverisok t1_j6expnx wrote

I thought it was advertised fairly heavily on the subway and those that need the WiFi (think low income, long commutes, can't afford unlimited) will be checking "Settings --> WiFi" to see if there's something they can connect to

21

AirlineFlyer t1_j6gnz7a wrote

Every single bus that had Wi-Fi had stickers indicating so in multiple places

6

aimglitchz t1_j6ljc3k wrote

I haven't ride NYC bus in forever. Never know it has WiFi

0

BizarroJordan t1_j6ezk3x wrote

There was free wifi?

42

Blue387 t1_j6girhp wrote

Yes, on the newer blue colored buses with USB chargers in the seats.

6

smg2720 t1_j6egbbp wrote

Okay fine but I’d imagine a lot of underserved ppl used the Wi-Fi. And how about instead of cutting services they cut the bureaucratic abuses?

34

windupshoe2020 t1_j6eokdj wrote

These things are not mutually exclusive.

17

smg2720 t1_j6fhxbe wrote

I didn’t say they were.

3

volkommm t1_j6fonzv wrote

'a instead of b'. Sounds like you aren't suggesting they do both simultaneously.

1

OnTheSea t1_j6gegmh wrote

Yeah because he doesn’t want them to do both. He didn’t say WiFi should be cut but they should tackle bureaucratic abuses instead. He’s actively advocating for keeping the free WiFi. The mutually exclusive comment makes no sense.

2

Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6hk1cq wrote

yes it does? smg is saying that what they are doing is a, but that they should stop doing a and do b instead. windup is saying that there is no reason they can't do both a and b, because a has nothing to do with b. a happening does not preclude the city from doing b.

2

OnTheSea t1_j6i1ugd wrote

And the city’s ability to do both a and b is irrelevant to smg’s comment because he does not want them to do both a and b, he only wants b.

2

Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6i3n28 wrote

smg suggests that because the city is doing A, they are not doing B. their use of the word "instead" establishes that they think there is some sort of connection between those things.

2

smg2720 t1_j6fp2zw wrote

Because they never do dipshit. Jesus Christ get a life who gives a shit anyway?

0

volkommm t1_j6fpik1 wrote

I can tell Thrive NYC wasn't able to succeed with helping you. Relax, pal.

0

Dantheking94 t1_j6f5gpc wrote

Y’all remember the days when we had transit Wi-Fi on the trains? Didn’t work everywhere but we all thought it would only get better with time. How wrong we were.

28

DFB- t1_j6f2000 wrote

I remember I would use the wifi & USB charging port everyday when I would take the Q10 bus to JFK everyday for work. It was a life changer. This was back in 2017

25

Sartela1980 t1_j6end0p wrote

So instead of fixing real problems within the MTA, they get rid of a service that benefits riders. Especially tourists.

13

FrankBeamer_ t1_j6env67 wrote

Less than 2% of riders use the service. It makes zero sense to keep spending millions on a service nobody really uses.

And there are already plenty of free Wi-Fi spots in the city

26

whateverisok t1_j6exi54 wrote

The 2% that use it most likely really, really need to use it, whether for long bus rides, international arrivals who don't have a SIM card yet, low-income people who can just about afford to have a phone but spend hours on the bus daily, etc.

Those free WiFi spots are slow and require going through the whole sign in progress again.

14

MaelStrom456 t1_j6fvbp1 wrote

I'm just going to point out that I DID use the WiFi on the buses, and you'd be lucky if you got anything to load within 5 minutes. I would spend 12+ hours on the bus a week for 4 years and I could not give you one good experience. The sheer stress of trying to submit a form for something knowing full well that the wifi probably wouldn't pull through for you is so real. It was a useless service that benefited those who maybe used it for very low data usage tasks.

4

ljthefa t1_j6g94nv wrote

That's 2% of the total population of riders and a skewed statistic. Not every bus has wifi.

7

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_j6erdgf wrote

As someone who has experienced firsthand just how shitty the Wi-Fi is on these buses, I can assure you that this service is helping no one. They should either improve it or get rid of it altogether.

11

SexyEdMeese t1_j6fye0a wrote

Literally who cares about tourists. If they can fly here from Paris or Singapore, they can afford a sim or cell data.

−1

ike_tyson t1_j6f6xp9 wrote

Yet another thing taken away from us.

9

BringMeInfo t1_j6enav7 wrote

>Transit officials have in recent months turned their focus to adding cellphone service to all the city’s subway tunnels and stations.

No, no, please for the love of God, no. The subway is bad enough at rush hour without assholes who are on the phone the whole time.

8

pompcaldor t1_j6evfeg wrote

I was once with a subway car with a person who was in the middle of an emotionally distraught phone call. The problem was it continued way past the station, and under the East River.

5

BringMeInfo t1_j6exnks wrote

I once asked someone if I could take her picture for my Tumblr of rude people on the phone on a crowded train. She initially said yes, but then you could see her process the actual words and she changed her mind.

9

bigvicproton t1_j6gaws6 wrote

That's funny. I was commuting from Long Island to NYC on LIRR back in the mid-90's or so. I remember the first guy yelling on a phone. "I'm on a train! I'm calling you from a train!". I really wanted a cell phone then but I couldn't afford it. But seeing that made me wonder how this whole cell-phone thing would play out. And it didn't look good. I've since moved to the forest and have no idea what it's like recently.

4

OverlordXenu t1_j6fe5vy wrote

idk why people are so pissy about this. it's not an issue on the bus. it's not an issue on metro north, LIRR, nj transit… all of which i've taken with some regularity from time to time. almost everyone is tired and just trying to get to work. the subway is by far the loudest of all the forms of transit in the city, and it's the one with the lease service coverage lol.

3

BringMeInfo t1_j6fhjqj wrote

The last three years have led me to expect very little consideration for others.

4

SexyEdMeese t1_j6fy79v wrote

Guess what's different about MNR and LIRR vs. the subway? Hint, the former are used by commuters, and the latter by every person in the city, for whom it is the cheapest option.

And yes, there are all sorts of shitlords playing TikToks or taking loud voice calls all over the subway. Lack of cell service doesn't stop them, but it does impede them.

1

NexusLI t1_j6gbfke wrote

Something like 40% of the system is above ground, and has cell service anyway. I've never found people on the phone to be as big an issue as everyone anticipates. Happens sometimes, but not frequently.

1

myassholealt t1_j6fddfy wrote

It's been a while since I was in this boat financially and I don't know if there are any phone plans where there is a data package that's offered that's less than an unlimited data plan on the network, but once upon a time over a decade ago I delayed switching from my grandfathered plan to an unlimited one. My plan was cheaper, and I'd supplement the data with WiFi at school and free networks (didn't even have wifi at home; was at the mercy of neighbors not knowing how to put passwords on their wifi). This change would've been bad for me. And I imagine the ones that will be impacted the most are the poorest among us, if they use it. Hopefully there are enough open networks around so that those negatively impacted have other areas they frequent where they can connect.

8

ike1 t1_j6fl0qh wrote

There are tons and tons of cheap MVNOs (resellers) that rarely if ever advertise and that offer plans that are much, much, much cheaper than the wildly overpriced unlimited plans. A lot of them go through the AT&T and Sprint networks.

5

iknowyouright t1_j6fb1x3 wrote

I can't think of a better way to open yourself up to cyber crime than using public unsecured wifi

5

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6fedoo wrote

There's really not much that someone could do, passwords are all encrypted and a random person wouldn't have access to change the DNS servers or anything.

6

wutcnbrowndo4u t1_j6fk0oe wrote

> passwords are all encrypted

The attack surface of the Web is massively more complicated than this.

−5

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6fkbvm wrote

Please enlighten me to what someone will do. Sniff the packets? Oh no, they found out what websites I visit. What's that, they don't know what person on the bus I am?

2

wutcnbrowndo4u t1_j6frp4s wrote

Your sarcasm is clearly masking extreme ignorance as to how the Web, the Internet, and computer security in general work, but I'll bite for one comment. Beyond that, feel free to do your own research (there's a website called google.com on which you can type "why is unsecured public wifi risky").

> Sniff the packets? Oh no, they found out what websites I visit

Leaving aside the obvious attack vectors of spoofing the access point or compromising the router, packet sniffing itself presents vulnerabilities. One of the primary reasons that defense in depth is a fundamental principle of network security is that a single browsing session interacts with a gargantuan number of different actors[1], and the odds of multiple gaps lining up is nonzero.

While you're checking out this Google website, look up what a "cookie" is in the context of the Internet. You may have noticed that you don't type in your password during every web request you make to a website logged in to, because you send cookie data instead that consistently identifies your different requests as belonging to the same session. Cookies are not encrypted with nearly the universality that passwords are, and an attacker with access to your cookie can impersonate you(r session) to the server that you're communicating with.

> What's that, they don't know what person on the bus I am?

I'll admit this last part of your comment made me question whether you even know what the Internet is. Are you under the impression that it's impossible for a browsing session to contain a collection of data that is useful without knowing what a person looks like or which seat on a bus they're sitting in? Are you under the impression that all successful hacks involve sending surveillance drones to visually identify the target?

[1] Not just the network infra and websites you're using, but every injected script and and ad on each of them

−5

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6fybkq wrote

Your assholeness is speaking volumes to how much of a douchebag you are. You're living your life in fear of shit that happens in movies and in your mind. It's no wonder you do this though, because of how much of an insufferable paranoid nerd you are. No one is doing all this shit on a bus. Oh, don't forget your faraday cage next time you're on the train, just in case!

4

manateefourmation t1_j6gn2vo wrote

Who cares. It’s a bus. It runs above ground. Everyone on it has some sort of cell phone. I take the crosstown M76 all the time - don’t think a lot of people are signing onto Wi-Fi.

5

Cordcutter77 t1_j6fh4hu wrote

It was nice but needing reliable service when were in the train is much more important.

4

fuckfuckfuck66 t1_j6fs3rc wrote

The MTA is a mob organization

4

manateefourmation t1_j6gogji wrote

The MTA runs the most complex mass transit system in the world. The only one that runs 24/7. Over 6 million people ride the subway each day alone. And unlike the limited DC Metro, BART, the London Underground, it is not a distance based system. For $2.75 you can go from anywhere to anywhere including bus transfers.

In DC, if you go from the end of the line in Maryland to DC, it can cost $10 during rush hour - each way.

So before you make silly comments, think about how complicated it is to run and manage this system - one built in large part in the early 1900s. Think you could do a better job?

Edit: typos

−1

NoStripeZebra3 t1_j6hhroo wrote

Go take the public transit in South Korea and then we'll talk

1

manateefourmation t1_j6hk6l5 wrote

South Korea is a country, not a city. So let’s look the biggest, Seoul, and compare it to NYC. And I’ve been to Seoul and ridden it.

NYC - 24/7. Seoul - 5am to 12am (You can do an awful lot of cleaning/ maintenance when you only run your trains 13 hours a day)

NYC - 472 stations Seoul - 302 stations

NYC - 850 miles track Seoul - 206 miles track

NYC - 1904 (most lines - early 1900s) Seoul - 1974

The only metric close is the number of daily riders.

Increasing post pandemic crime has been an issue with both systems. Just Google “Seoul subway crimes 2022.”

I’ll leave it up to Reddit to decide if this is a fair comparison.

1

[deleted] t1_j6igxd8 wrote

[deleted]

2

manateefourmation t1_j6iiqfk wrote

Here is the stat you requested:

“Overall, the system contains 248 miles (399 km) of routes,[11] translating into 665 miles (1,070 km) of revenue track[11] and a total of 850 miles (1,370 km) including non-revenue trackage.”

So revised:

NYC - 665 miles revenue track Seoul - 206 miles*

*A lot of sources report the Seoul number a lot higher, but include light rail and commuter rails - including those that go to rural areas. I’m comparing the core system (inside Seoul) to the NYC subway.

Indeed, in its reporting of ridership, Seoul includes commuter rails even to rural areas. So to compare ridership numbers with NYC, we would need to include the LIRR, Metro North, PATH and Jersey Transit

2

kolt54321 t1_j6mz6s8 wrote

You mention most of NYC lines being built in 1904 as if that's a positive.

It's not. There are areas of NYC that have never seen a train station (southeast Brooklyn, swathes of east Queens) and have been waiting for over a century.

Improvements could have been made in the last 119 years, but no. That's where the MTA has failed.

Wake me up when I can get from Brooklyn to Queens in less than 2.5 hours.

1

manateefourmation t1_j6nqzgs wrote

I didn’t point to the age of the system as a positive, just the opposite. It’s old infrastructure running 24/7 and my point was to give the people running it credit for making it work at all. Just recently did signaling options advance out of the early 1900s.

I grew up in southeast Brooklyn and not a subway in sight. I had to take the bus to D for my early job in the city. So I feel you. The issue is the absolute ridiculous cost of building new lines - just look at the 2.5 billion per mile to build the 2 on UES. Building subways in NYC is more than twice as expensive as building subways in other places in the world. Labor unions, environmental impact and guess like everything NYC - just expensive.

As I think I said earlier, the money used to build this LIRR GCT station, tunnels and track, should have been used to the long planned light rail line between Brooklyn and Queens.

If this gets done, it will help. Still a bus from southeast Brooklyn to the light rail but cut the time dramatically.

https://gothamist.com/news/brooklyn-queens-interborough-express-rail-project-quickly-moves-next-phase

1

kolt54321 t1_j6p10sa wrote

I see your point now - agree with your take. Thanks for taking the time to explain!

2

RecentInjury8655 t1_j6fffck wrote

I don't blame them for taking WiFi out especially if there is a big cost. When I traveled to Ireland, I made sure that my provider allowed me to roam. It wasn't that much per day. I did not even use the roaming. I planned my vacation on WiFi at the hotel.

3

jdapper5 t1_j6g7cwa wrote

"...Transit officials have in recent months turned their focus to adding cellphone service to all the city’s subway tunnels and stations... Estimated cost $600m"

Meanwhile train & bus service is terrible, the stations are disgusting, entrances/exits at some stops remain closed & 🔐 AND... MTA has the gall to continuing raising fares. All the while mismanaging funds. Gotta love it 🤡

3

manateefourmation t1_j6gn97y wrote

That makes sense. Better use of dollars. Right now, I have to quickly text or load a page when we get to stops. Unlike buses where they are above ground, for the subway this is an amazing upgrade.

So not sure why you think this is a waste of money. And I totally disagree. The subway is a relatively clean and safe way to get around the city. You most obviously didn’t live here in the 1980s when the cars had graffiti all over them. Inside and out and crime was really an issue - not a hyped TikTok story. Over 6 million people ride the subway on average day. If 6 million people walked through your house, not sure how spotless it would be.

Edit: and the service is fucking amazing. Trains typically within minutes. Runs 24 hours a day (only system in world to do that). Are there delays. Sure. Is it incredibly reliable - absolutely. Are you really in NYC or just trolling???

0

jdapper5 t1_j6iv4mj wrote

  1. I've lived in the greater NYC my entire life and in NYC itself the past 13 years. And of course crime is not nearly as high as the 1980s, however perception is everything. And crime is one of the reasons ridership has yet to bounce back.

  2. There's no doubt our public transit system is unique in the sense that it runs 24/7. However, I am not naive enough to think it's wise for the MTA to waste $600m on wifi underground when there are clearly more pressing needs (reference my original post) AND they have a huge deficit every year. Having cell service underground is NOT a necessity. Period.

  3. And to your tone deaf commentary about reliable service: tell that to NYers who live in the outer boroughs - specifically in areas with a dearth of transit options. It's easy for folks like you to live in a bubble where you don't have to worry about if you're going to arrive to work on time or alter you budget spend because now you have to spend money on a car service.

2

manateefourmation t1_j6j0he5 wrote

  1. Perception is quite literally not everything. We live in a world where everyone has a video camera on them at all times and free platforms (TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) that incentivize sensationalism for profit. If we allow and don’t fight back with real statistics about crime in the subway - or NYC in general (which is the safest city in the US but you’d never know it from “perception”), we will be a losing battle. And if you believe it’s perception, how about posting against the sensationalism instead of being part of it. Your post here played into it! And the main reason ridership has not bounced back according to actual data has nothing to do with crime; it has everything to do with remote working. As of last month only 17% of office workers in NYC had returned to the office full time. Stop making stuff up!
  2. Do you know that almost every other country in the world subsidizes their transit systems - they don’t expect them to be profitable. Or, like DC, and London (among others) charge high distance base fares. Do you want to pay $10 to get from distant Queens or Brooklyn to a Manhattan? That’s what you would pay in DC? Do you want to turn the subway into the LIRR or Metro North and charge those fares. It would solve the deficit really quickly. Do you appreciate just how inexpensive $2.75 is relative to all other transit options?
  3. Your argument that having cell service underground is “Not a necessity,” is your subjective argument. My strong hunch is if I surveyed subway riders I would get a different answer than yours? The cost of this is a drop in bucket of what it costs to run the subway. It also addresses safety perception issues to be able to call 911 at any time.
  4. I was born and raised in Brooklyn and lived in Astoria before Manhattan. So I have a lot of outer borough transit experience. The NQR from Queens got me into the city flawlessly. The D from Brooklyn the same. The L when I lived in Williamsburg was amazing. So I have no idea what you are talking about. So yeah “folks like me.”
  5. Where we might agree is that we need outer borough options like a light rail between Brooklyn and Queens so that for most trips you don’t need to go on the subway into Manhattan to to get between Brooklyn and Queens.
1

LuisTheCool t1_j6gswst wrote

I hope they get rid of all their flat screen TVs for 30 seconds ads about how to make seasonal desserts

3

Njtransferdriver t1_j6f9a8x wrote

Another way to make up for there so called losses

2

Celestiicaa t1_j6fgbw9 wrote

Das cool, was kinda shit anyway

2

ManLindsay t1_j6fjutg wrote

How can we increase ridership? I know! We can take away one of the few amenities on transportation. Cool

2

flightwaves OP t1_j6fm5f7 wrote

The city should just cut a deal with optimum or spectrum to provide free Wi-Fi coverage in city buses.

2

Jimmy_kong253 t1_j6hcbqt wrote

Used it a few times and it barely worked

2

drumstix97 t1_j6ez63c wrote

Did anyone ever actually use this wifi system?

1

swordmalice t1_j6fb3n7 wrote

I did. I don't have unlimited data on my phone plan so I mad a habit of connecting to any free WiFi hotspots wherever I can.

8

michaelcerasnose t1_j6fknma wrote

i rely on it almost every day. I have a limited data plan so I use wifi whenever I can. I ran out of data this month so for several days now it's been my only source of internet between home and work.

6

ike1 t1_j6fkny4 wrote

Yup, I did. I don't do unlimited data.

4

NoodleShak t1_j6fqwpp wrote

Right now I’m staying with a buddy in Staten Island and go into the office around noon. I could usually bang out a few tasks and free up an hour at work and go mess around.

2

brooklynbullshit t1_j6fj0dt wrote

Am I the only one who just found out about there being wi-fi on busses? I’d totally have used it if I had known that was a thing.

1

killerasp t1_j6fmdic wrote

i used it for the first time a couple of weeks ago to only see the message that it will be disconnected at the end of january 2023 b/c of lack of use. I can see why its not popular. everyone has decent mobile plan and the speeds might not be the best on the bus. glad they are getting rid of it since it was not popular.

1

degen-69 t1_j6gl2o6 wrote

This is common in business. Shit roll out, shit results.

1

EvanMcD3 t1_j6gofr4 wrote

Wi-fi works on buses? None that I've ever taken.

1

thepobv t1_j6gpcf4 wrote

Wat? I never get to work i just assumed they never worked

1

ZenWarrior7 t1_j6hkwly wrote

Wifi has become such a vital aspect of life that it should just be free for everyone. Let them make money in other ways but internet access shouldn't be one of them.

1

SumyungNam t1_j6i50bb wrote

Need to cut costs! But raise fares!

1

TeamMisha t1_j6ipquq wrote

Frankly give me more service over stupid wifi. Idc if the bus has wifi if it only runs once per hour by me in Queens outside of rush hour lol

1

The_Lone_Apple t1_j6kg9ti wrote

Using my bus time to login to work and start some things moving is out. Oh well, I'll just work from home every day. I hope the money they save will go towards keeping fares down on the express bus...hello?

1

epicfighter10 t1_j6fumwz wrote

Much rather prefer they have signal boosters for 5g and LTE onboard buses and trains rather then wifi. Will be cheaper since the signal boosters are a one time investment rather then paying a monthly bill for internet on busses

0

epicfighter10 t1_j6meeo4 wrote

Got downvoted for making sense guess you people don’t want reception underground, I will never understand Reddit 😂

1

itemluminouswadison t1_j6fv7sq wrote

I only have a 1gb plan and even i dont use bus wifi. My podcast is preloaded and im not watching my phone on the bus or else i feel sick

0

Die-Nacht t1_j6fzb67 wrote

I've lived in NYC for 20 years, I didn't even know buses had wifi on them.

The thought never even entered my head.

0

azdak t1_j6ghl39 wrote

I mean it doesn’t make sense as a product. You need wifi in the subway because you don’t have 4/5G. You don’t need it on a bus.

I respect it as an accessibility thing for the small number of people who don’t have a data plan, but if that’s your whole target market then fund it as a social service and not a public transport feature that will be evaluated on user volume

0

First-Ear-7930 t1_j6hvggt wrote

New Yorkers think they are the center of the world, unfortunately it’s the developing one.

0

PatentedPotato t1_j6jytf5 wrote

So if they don't have to afford the cost of the WiFi, fares should come down a bit?

0

flightwaves OP t1_j6k1ihx wrote

Actually this might save a few pennies off the upcoming fare increase maybe…

1

PatentedPotato t1_j6k346y wrote

Let's be honest... Fares are gonna be a multiple of 25¢. There's no pennies being saved.

1

Njtransferdriver t1_j6f9l3a wrote

Maybe if they provide better pricing they wouldn’t have to do anything but as it is people still drive to much in the city

−1

ICantThinkOfANameBud t1_j6ferme wrote

Better pricing...for free wifi? "people still drive to[sic] much in the city" Sometimes it's the only way to get places. Some people don't want to get on a dirty bus or subway. Some people live places that there is little or no public transit access. Cars are a necessity in a lot of cases. You are never going to get your dream bike + public transit only city. Just give it up.

3

RobinsonDickinson t1_j6fdhnw wrote

Great, now I don't have to feel guilty about fare evasion.

Evading tolls feel much better tho.

−6