"Smart Cards" accepted as NYC subway fare

Babaganoosh wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to have maybe one charge a month (buying a
> Metrocard) rather than dozens of $2 charges there (once per ride)?

Does it really matter?

From my perspective as the customer, if anything, I'd rather hold onto
my money as long as possible. The later I can hold onto my $2, the
longer I can earn interest on it.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY

Babaganoosh wrote:
> But my credit card? If that's stolen - even if I can report it as such
> and not be liable for unauthorized charges - it's still a lot bigger
> hassle. It would take days, possibly weeks, to get a new one. I don't
> have that kind of time.

You only have one credit card?!

> That's still a lot of charges to keep track of. Especially since you
> don't get a receipt.

I agree that there should be a way to get an itemized printout of recent
transactions, either from the machines or from the booth. London's
Oyster has that feature (printouts are available at ticket windows, and
ticket machines can show the last few trips on the screen, although I
don't think they can print them).
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY

Babaganoosh wrote:

> Yes. I only need one. Why would I want more? I still have to pay it all
> off, eventually. What could two cards do for me that one can't?

You never know when the transaction screening software might do
something weird. Several years ago I was buying a car CD changer and
the transaction was not allowed. I just put it on my other card. When
I got home the bank had called me. I called them back and they said
that electronics stores are a frequent source of fraudulent charges and
that this was an unusual charge for me. That is true. I haven't bought
another car CD changer (or car for that matter) in 7 years.

Sometimes it can be more of a problem. A friend was checking out of a
hotel in London on her way to the airport when her card was rejected for
no reason. She had another card and put the hotel bill on that. If she
had to try to straighten it out with the first card company she might
have missed her flight.

John Mara

Babaganoosh wrote:
> In article <o2qlp3-u36.ln1@greenberger.no-ip.com>,
> David of Broadway <david.of.broadway@> wrote:
>
>> Babaganoosh wrote:
>>> But my credit card? If that's stolen - even if I can report it as such
>>> and not be liable for unauthorized charges - it's still a lot bigger
>>> hassle. It would take days, possibly weeks, to get a new one. I don't
>>> have that kind of time.
>> You only have one credit card?!
>
> Yes. I only need one. Why would I want more? I still have to pay it all
> off, eventually. What could two cards do for me that one can't? IMHO,
> having more than one credit card is inefficient; it only invites more
> debt.

I can think of quite a few reasons.

So that you can still get by if your other card is stolen or lost or if
the magstripe stops working. (See above.)

To maximize rebates and other benefits. (I have one card that gives me
5% back at certain types of store and another card that gives me 3% back
at other types of store.)

In some countries, it isn't customary for both MasterCard and Visa to
necessarily be accepted at the same places. If you only have one, you
may find yourself in a bind at times. A related point is that some
cards charge lower overseas transaction fees than others.

And, no, having multiple credit cards doesn't invite more debt than
having just one. If you borrow on your credit card (which is a bad idea
in general), you can do that with just one. If you use your credit card
as a convenience (or as a way to pick up rebates and the like) and you
always pay it in full each month, never charging more than you already
have in the bank, then it doesn't matter if you have one or 100.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY

Agent_C wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 15:25:46 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@> wrote:
>
> >The only Corbusier building in the United States is Harvard's School
> >(Department?) of Art and Design. (Not really worth the trip.)
>
> Does the United Nations count? Not exclusively his design (he was a
> member of the committee of architects), but let's face it, the
> Secretariat and grounds *scream* Le Corbusier.

He was put on the Committee precisely to keep him from submitting a
design; some have suggested that if his League of Nations hq had been
built, WWII might have been avoided. (That's stretching it a bit, but
at least there would have been another great building in Paris.) The
Committee selected the architect from the competition, it didn't design
the buildings.

The UN is by Nelson Rockefeller's pet architect Wallace K. Harrison
(who was also responsible for much of what's bad about Lincoln Center
and the giant plaza in Albany). The last time I wandered through the
public areas, I was noticing how dated it looks, very 50s-Moderne.

Bolwerk wrote:
> Agent_C wrote:
> > On 30 Aug 2006 15:25:46 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <grammatim@> wrote:
> >
> >> The only Corbusier building in the United States is Harvard's School
> >> (Department?) of Art and Design. (Not really worth the trip.)
> >
> > Does the United Nations count? Not exclusively his design (he was a
> > member of the committee of architects), but let's face it, the
> > Secretariat and grounds *scream* Le Corbusier.
>
> He was talking about actual buildings Le Corbusier designed. I was
> talking about the style that he inspired.
>
> The WTC complex was also in the Le Corbusier vein.

Good grief.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Agent_C wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2006 15:25:46 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@> wrote:
>>
>>> The only Corbusier building in the United States is Harvard's School
>>> (Department?) of Art and Design. (Not really worth the trip.)
>> Does the United Nations count? Not exclusively his design (he was a
>> member of the committee of architects), but let's face it, the
>> Secretariat and grounds *scream* Le Corbusier.
>
> He was put on the Committee precisely to keep him from submitting a
> design; some have suggested that if his League of Nations hq had been
> built, WWII might have been avoided. (That's stretching it a bit, but
> at least there would have been another great building in Paris.) The
> Committee selected the architect from the competition, it didn't design
> the buildings.

That's probably stretching it A LOT.

> The UN is by Nelson Rockefeller's pet architect Wallace K. Harrison
> (who was also responsible for much of what's bad about Lincoln Center
> and the giant plaza in Albany). The last time I wandered through the
> public areas, I was noticing how dated it looks, very 50s-Moderne.

Did Harrison and Rockefeller have a fallout? I always wondered why
Minoru Yamasaki got the WTC job, especially considering how the
Rockefellers were pushing for the complex.

Bolwerk wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Agent_C wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2006 15:25:46 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <grammatim@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The only Corbusier building in the United States is Harvard's School
> >>> (Department?) of Art and Design. (Not really worth the trip.)
> >> Does the United Nations count? Not exclusively his design (he was a
> >> member of the committee of architects), but let's face it, the
> >> Secretariat and grounds *scream* Le Corbusier.
> >
> > He was put on the Committee precisely to keep him from submitting a
> > design; some have suggested that if his League of Nations hq had been
> > built, WWII might have been avoided. (That's stretching it a bit, but
> > at least there would have been another great building in Paris.) The
> > Committee selected the architect from the competition, it didn't design
> > the buildings.
>
> That's probably stretching it A LOT.
>
> > The UN is by Nelson Rockefeller's pet architect Wallace K. Harrison
> > (who was also responsible for much of what's bad about Lincoln Center
> > and the giant plaza in Albany). The last time I wandered through the
> > public areas, I was noticing how dated it looks, very 50s-Moderne.
>
> Did Harrison and Rockefeller have a fallout? I always wondered why
> Minoru Yamasaki got the WTC job, especially considering how the
> Rockefellers were pushing for the complex.

Rockefeller didn't run the Port of Authority (as we called it back
then), Austin Tobin did, and he probably wanted to prove his was
bigger.

So he goes and hires an acrophobe to design the world's tallest
building ... who put windows in it you couldn't see anything out of.

And wasn't Harrison pretty much retired by then anyway?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Agent_C wrote:
>>>> On 30 Aug 2006 15:25:46 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <grammatim@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only Corbusier building in the United States is Harvard's School
>>>>> (Department?) of Art and Design. (Not really worth the trip.)
>>>> Does the United Nations count? Not exclusively his design (he was a
>>>> member of the committee of architects), but let's face it, the
>>>> Secretariat and grounds *scream* Le Corbusier.
>>> He was put on the Committee precisely to keep him from submitting a
>>> design; some have suggested that if his League of Nations hq had been
>>> built, WWII might have been avoided. (That's stretching it a bit, but
>>> at least there would have been another great building in Paris.) The
>>> Committee selected the architect from the competition, it didn't design
>>> the buildings.
>> That's probably stretching it A LOT.
>>
>>> The UN is by Nelson Rockefeller's pet architect Wallace K. Harrison
>>> (who was also responsible for much of what's bad about Lincoln Center
>>> and the giant plaza in Albany). The last time I wandered through the
>>> public areas, I was noticing how dated it looks, very 50s-Moderne.
>> Did Harrison and Rockefeller have a fallout? I always wondered why
>> Minoru Yamasaki got the WTC job, especially considering how the
>> Rockefellers were pushing for the complex.
>
> Rockefeller didn't run the Port of Authority (as we called it back
> then), Austin Tobin did, and he probably wanted to prove his was
> bigger.

That wouldn't surprise me.

> So he goes and hires an acrophobe to design the world's tallest
> building ... who put windows in it you couldn't see anything out of.

That's EXACTLY what made me wonder. Yamasaki always seemed like the last
person who should design a supertall structure. I guess I really
shouldn't have made the assumption that Harrison would have been the
natural choice to design the WTC, but I always found Yamasaki a
surprising choice.

Overall, I was never very fond of the WTC. I thought it was very
striking at night though.

> And wasn't Harrison pretty much retired by then anyway?

Maybe that explains it. I don't know a lot about Harrison off hand, but
he was still working in the 1970s. I actually only looked it up after
you mentioned it, but I wasn't even aware he was that close to Rockefeller.

Harrison designed Empire State Plaza, which was built around the same
time. Almost sounds like a consolation prize.

Agent_C wrote:
> * Our rolling stock is definitely newer and more reliable.

Is it really newer? Three lines in London (Central, Jubilee, and
Northern) run stock from the 90's, and the only pre-1970 stock is on the
Victoria line.

I can't address reliability based on a brief visit (and neither can you!).

I can certainly say that the seats are much, much more comfortable in
London (particularly, IMO, on the 1973, 1992, 1995, and 1996 tube
stock). But the cars aren't air conditioned.

> * Station aesthetics and cleanliness were roughly equal. I frankly
> expected the Tube stations to be cleaner.

Having just returned from London two days ago, I've been marveling at
how filthy our system is.

> * Your customer information (signs and announcements) are far
> superior. We're just in the beginning stages of implementing automated
> CIS, so the gap is likely to narrow over the next 5 years.

Agreed.

> * Some of your trains are amazingly small. While riding on the
> Piccadilly line, I couldn't believe how low the ceiling was.

That's the case for all of the tube (as opposed to subsurface) lines.
The trains are small because the tunnels they run through are small.
It's not called the tube for nothing!

> Be sure to ride the 4/5/6 from Grand Central to downtown Manhattan and
> take the A train from Midtown to Harlem. Some of the longest express
> runs in the world.

Compared to a Fast Amersham from Finchley Road to Harrow-on-the-Hill? I
doubt that.

The East Side express runs aren't particularly long. The CPW express
is, but it's also dreadfully slow.

If you want a fast express, I'd recommend the 2/3 in Manhattan, the B in
Brooklyn, and maybe the A in Brooklyn -- especially if you catch a Far
Rockaway train and cap off your express run with a ride across Jamaica
Bay to the Rockaways.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY