Why doesn't the MTA make the stations on the subway look better? (New York: chapel, transfer)

[BAA17]

I was looking at this pretty cool tumbr thing of this guy with 100 suggestions to the subway and some of them were pretty dumb but some of them were pretty smart like painting the station pillars with bright paint and putting up more exit or transfer signs throughout the stations. I recently went on a trip to NYC and London and the comparison between the Tube stations and New York's stations were unbelievable. It's obvious at first sight that London's stations were recently modernized and New York's stations look the same hundred years ago except no one cleaned it. And they're not that expensive either like the paint. So why doesn't the MTA invest more in the stations?

Here's the link: 100 Improvements to the New York Subway



London's Westminster station



New York's Times Square station

[wawaweewa]

Mostly because so much of he mta's funding is either stolen through corruption or goes to ludicrous pay packages for many employees.

[LTA1992]

Blame the State. That's where the money for the Capital Program comes from. On top of that, people continue to compare a system that runs 24/7 to systems that only run about 20 hours a day, therefore having ample time to meticulously clean each station.

[BlakeJones]

Dude, most NYC stations are literally holes in the ground that were covered up. It works, that's all that matters. And FYI, they do spend a fortune in renovating. They do it one station at a time, it takes forever, and it costs a fortune

[Bremsstrahlung]

London's system is less than one half the size of NYC's system and it doesn't run 24/7.

edit: Actually I'm not sure about the comparison of lengths... the NYC subway is over 200 miles long but there are 656 miles of track, which I think accounts for the fact that most stretches of the subway have multiple tracks alongside each other. I'm not sure if the figure I'm getting for the length of the London Underground is actual track length or if it's path length.

I do know that London has 270 stations whereas NYC has 468, so in that regard, the NYC system is definitely bigger.

[Kefir King]

Because the MTA is poorly run and overpaid. They are not answerable to anyone, least of all the travelling public. So, like most employees, if they don't HAVE to do something, they will not do it.
And they most definitely do not have to provide clean stations...so we have to live with grime.
We get what we settle for.


Big, old? All stupid arguments for filth. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is both big and old...but it is not filthy. Versailles is big and old but they manage to keep it clean.
And almost every other subway system on the planet makes ours look like a dump in comparison.

[mathjak107]

i guess for the same reason they lock gas station bathrooms. perhaps they are afraid someone will clean them.

[Chava61]

As everyone knows the MTA's has budget problems. I would prefer they improve their service first before they spruce up the train stations.

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Bremsstrahlung

London's system is less than one half the size of NYC's system and it doesn't run 24/7.

edit: Actually I'm not sure about the comparison of lengths... the NYC subway is over 200 miles long but there are 656 miles of track, which I think accounts for the fact that most stretches of the subway have multiple tracks alongside each other. I'm not sure if the figure I'm getting for the length of the London Underground is actual track length or if it's path length.

I do know that London has 270 stations whereas NYC has 468, so in that regard, the NYC system is definitely bigger.

This is nonsense.

What does its size or running 24/7 ( service is heavily curtailed late night) have to do with anything?


The MTA is corrupt and thoroughly mismanaged. That's the problem.

[SobroGuy]

Kefir was right 100%...not much else to add except that for a city that bills itself as the greatest in the world, the trains are 3rd world....and if you actually sat and thought about much of NYC in comparison to other 1st world cities, you would see that much of NYC, it's systems, infrastructure, services etc are 3rd world. It's an embarrassment, and whenever someone extolled the city as the greatest, I am quick to correct them.