The Second Ave subway is a new line. It didn't even cross any existing lines. They obviously had to hook it up with the existing Q at one point, but I don't see why the 24/7 argument applies here?
The crossovers probably cost so much because they're underground and require extra tunnel space. (They require extra (as in between the two-or-more tracks that are being switched) foundations above ground too, which is probably more expensive than the switch itself.)
However, I'd like to see a cost breakdown.
Even the busiest lines in Tokyo are mostly single-rail. Of course, when a train breaks down, then nothing can happen, but at least you don't need 4 sets of rails, only 2 (one for each direction). There's probably way less in terms of delays because of that too. Each train is on its own set of tracks, so little cross-cutting.
But aren't most of the train lines in Tokyo owned and operated by separate competing companies They don't have to interoperate or not that much correct?
Once upon a time the trains in New York City were also owned by separate competing companies, there was the IND, BMT, and the IRT but they now operate as one entity under the MTA. As a result all these lines were originally built differently with different tunnel widths and platform to accommodate the different size cars. I think this level of interop adds to the complexity of the system as a whole.
Why the focus on unions, which are very weak in the U.S.? How about public officials who give work to their wealthy, powerful allies and donors?
Weak in general, yes; but very strong in the public sector. They push through all sorts of measures because they control a large voting block (and often public sector unions support each other without questions; for example, if the fire fighters union is pushing for something, you can bet the police officers union will support it too). This really magnifies their power.
New York City's unions, particularly public and construction unions, are strong. In my limited experience, at hearings and meetings involving New York infrastructure, the "ayes" are supplied by the unions. The "wealthy, powerful allies and donors" are more present at zoning and related private-development discussions.
Unions are visibly and numerously present at New York's many off-season elections, e.g. judicial primaries and participatory budgeting polls.
Good point; unions seem stronger in NY than in other parts of the country.
However, if you are a New Yorker, I don't think you mean to claim that the wealthy and powerful aren't the beneficiaries of corruption.
IMHO, unions give workers power, balancing the scales a little. Power can be used for good or bad (or almost always, for both), but I certainly wouldn't exclude working-class people from it for not being angels. Why should they be held to a higher standard than other powerful people? If we are going to fight corruption, why pick on the working class?
It's absurd to imply that such a person, if real, is representative of the incomes of union members in New York. And again, why focus on that guy and not the person making tens of millions?
EDIT: Reading the articles you linked to, I understand those are the high-end of salaries of crain operators building skyscrapers in in NYC.[0] I'm not sure that's inappropriate; it's high skill work with many lives and enormous investment on the line, like an airplane pilot. Why do people think their incomes are inappropriate (if that is the implication) and not the person who makes tens of millions from their casual gaming software startup.
And that does not qualify as wealthy in NY, at least not in a way that will buy you any influence.
[0] The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B lays out the wage floor for its operators at $73.91 per hour. That’s $150,000 a year before overtime, plus benefits equal to $32.50 an hour. When the operator is behind the controls of a tower crane, he gets a $2-an-hour bump. On weekends, when cranes are moved, pay doubles. With overtime, many union members earn half a million dollars a year.
>these wealthy people, overpaid jobs, racist, nepotism, cronyism, screwing over
I think you've made your case clear. Glad you didn't have to resort to name-calling.
He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect?
The definition already assumes that "market wages" reflect some optimal (for society) balance. So it's just circular reasoning.
In the real world "market wages" also reflect power struggles, and in those power struggles those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation.
Unions help balance those power struggles to the (much more numerous) worker's side. You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something.
Not to mention that the rich are the ultimate rent-seekers, especially in this stage of the economy. And "too big to fail" to top.
>He resorted to name calling, but which of his names do you think is actuslly incorrect?
Rent seeker is already incorrect as I showed. Then there's racism (doesn't even apply in this context), nepotism (as if union members hire their siblings?), cronyism (ditto), etc.
The definition of rent seeking has nothing to do with your favorite socially optimal balance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Unions attempt to obtain a higher income than that which would be necessary to keep a factor of production (in this case labor) employed in it's current use by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Thus, they are by definition rent seekers.
...those paying the wages have numerous means to get the upper hand -- from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation.
You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel.
In contrast, cartels of wage payers are illegal, and the media is rarely favorable to their interests. But in the rare cases when wage payers form a cartel, this too is rent seeking.
You know, the people that, unlike Ayn Rand's heroes, actually produce something.
I'd suggest once you finish reading the definition of rent seeking, you might also consider reading Ayn Rand. You might be shocked to discover that all of her heroes are productive workers.
Unions represent those that par excellence create new wealth, the workers. It's the managerial class that doesn't create any new wealth -- and it's that class, land owners, industry leaders, etc, that is more prone to rent seeking.
Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is.
Note that "a higher income than that which would be necessary" is mumbo jumbo without clear definition, except if we are to accept subsistence pay.
>You seem to be confused - it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers. Unions buy politicians and get favorable legislation, and a union is by definition a cartel.
You seem even more confused.
First, you say that "it's unions, not wage payers, who have these powers".
By this, you already seem to accept the notion that individual workers do not have these powers -- unless they organize in a union. Which was my point precisely.
If you read my comment, I didn't say that that the unions don't have power. I only said that wage payers have much power over the workers, and that unions help to alleviate that.
Your statement is agreeing with me on this, with the exception that you seem to believe that the union then gets too much power over the wage payers (which I believe is wrong).
The second problematic thing is that I enumerate which powers I believe that wage payers have: "from forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" -- and you say that those are the powers that unions have.
Sorry, but those are by no means the powers that unions get. The unions at most offer collective bargaining powers (and usually their leadership tends to be corrupt and in bed with wage payers anyway). The Rockefellers, Hearsts, Trumps, etc of the world are more known to "forming cartels and controlling the media, to downright buying politicians and favorable legislation" than unions are.
But they create no new wealth themselves while seeking to capture more wealth. Hence, rent seekers.
Of course a manager getting a $1 million bonus or a CEO ensuring their golden parachute while the company goes down the drain (thus hardly "creating any new wealth") is not called "rent seeking" while a construction worker getting $1 per hour more due to union bargaining is.
Correct, a manager/CEO/construction worker negotiating higher compensation by threatening to leave is not rent seeking. That's because this factor of production would not be employed at a lower wage.
Rent seeking is a technical term with a specific definition, not a general term of derision. Unions meet that definition, CEOs (in their role as labor) mostly do not.
Are you serious? Major developers in NYC don't have market-distorting power?
The Vox article [1] specifically cites depth as a contributor to the Second Avenue Line's increased cost:
"the majority of the Second Avenue subway’s price tag actually comes from the stations rather than the tunnels. The line is being built unusually deep for a subway tunnel, which doesn’t do much to change the basic logistics of boring a tunnel, but does make excavation of station caverns unusually difficult."
[1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new...
(MTA officials say the Second Avenue Subway cost as much as it did because of Manhattan's "complex underground infrastructure" as well as the fact that the New York City Subway runs all the time [3], the latter not being a requirement of Paris or London's systems.)
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/31/here-s-why-...
[2] http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/the-path-to-4-billion...
[3] http://www.amny.com/transit/second-avenue-subway-cost-concer...