You can’t cite those numbers and leave out LIRR, Metro North and NJ Transit, which all serve NYC in addition to the NYC subway.

>Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, and Hong Kong

You are vastly oversimplifying this. Tokyo, for example has less than half as many stations as NYC. Taipei even fewer stations than Tokyo. Hong Kong even fewer.

I'll agree that they're cleaner and more efficient, but our subway system is simply way bigger than pretty much every single other subway system.

Oh yeah, it's also open 24/7. The ones you mentioned aren't.

Okay, so don’t complain when they cut service.

Care to actually engage with my point or are you just going to be pedantic?

And capping funding will achieve what exactly?

They’re all in the union buddy.

I can't see how this could ever backfire for commuters.

>Renegotiating what exactly with the unions?

If you even have to ask this question then you have no business accusing the MTA of mismanaging its money.

Who do you think designed the MTA's ridiculous overtime policies?

It’s funny how this sub is 100% behind enforcing tolls on the roads, but 100% against enforcing fares in the subway.

For the record, I support enforcing both, but there seems to be this meme on here that people who hop the turnstile are too poor to afford to the fare (despite the fair fares program and the fact that the NYC subway is very cheap relative to all other systems of its size) and fare beaters on the roads are just opportunists. The truth is that both groups are just selfish opportunists and should be treated as such.

>shitty people like criminals and violent students as victims (of police, bad teachers, society, etc) instead of perpetrators and react by failing to protect innocent people from them.

Further to this, they fail to account for the fact that most people who grow up in those same communities with those same headwinds don't become criminals. I.e. the notion that criminality is predetermined given one's circumstances is clearly proven false by those who suffer the same BS and rise above it.

This doesn’t line up with my personal experience. In my neighborhood, two of the places that sell weed (illegally) are also the spots where everyone buys Virginia cigarettes and loosies. They’re just in the business of dodging taxes. But agree to disagree.

Am I supposed to disagree with this?

The answer is: if storefronts started popping up all over the city where people were selling liquor without a license, they’d get shut down.

My original comment was disagreeing with someone who seems to think that that sort of enforcement would be unjust because “fuck big liquor” or whatever.

Maybe you’re not one of these people, but I’m old enough to remember everyone in this sub (rightfully) hoping for a day when substances like cannabis could be sold, regulated and taxed.

If you’re too obtuse to see that any business that dodges taxes has an unfair advantage over its competitors, I don’t know what to tell you.

This is to say nothing of the lost tax revenue that could go to, well, helping people in our society with all the social programs that seem so venerated in this sub.

That’s just an argument to revisit the laws and their efficacy, not to give carte blanche to any Tom, Dick or Harry to sell whatever they want wherever they want because it feels unfair.

Apply this logic to literally any other business that requires some sort of licensing and you see very quickly why it's extremely unfair to businesses who follow the letter of the law.

No, but I think it’s still important to be honest about what is going on.

Yes and no. As I understand it, it depends largely on how you define who is on the receiving end of benefits. For example, immigrants who come with children or who have children after arriving, become eligible for a host of benefits. While technically some of these benefits are specifically for the benefit of the child (who is in many cases a US citizen proper), it's murky to determine exactly how much the parents are actually benefiting themselves from these programs.

I'm not really disagreeing with your original point. Just pointing out that it's not exactly as clear cut as "not a citizen, no benefits".

I saw that article. Did they specify that the Ecuadorian person was applying for asylum?

I think that you'd find it is way more crowded today than it was even a year ago.

Thanks. I’ll look this up.

Is there any place one can see the figures for how many homeless people are homeless as the result of an eviction? The headline implies that there’s a causal relationship here, but my understanding of homelessness is that its causes are more nuanced than just “got evicted, now homeless”.

I don’t see any mention of those numbers in the article.

Where did you get these figures?

Especially upstairs.

34th and 8th checking in.