That's what I used to do, when I worked in NYC.

They would announce that no trains were running, and that people should take buses or whatever.

But no one believed them. They just said that to get people out of Grand Central. With the trains delayed, there were so many people backed up in the station that it was a fire hazard. So they'd say anything to get people out of the station.

Savvy commuters knew that, so they'd wait anyway, and usually the trains would be running again in an hour or two.

Actually, when we got to our RER destination, the RATP line still wasn't running. In Paris, at least, they really meant it. NYC, though, has a real problem at Grand Central, and the parallel Metro North (rough RER equivalent) line is not useful for local transportation. That's why they need the Second Avenue Subway, the one that's been mired in political corruption for, oh, the least 60 or 70 years, bonded several times and still not finished. It was even worse when they were running four-car trains to 'save money', as the platforms became packed and dangerous; maybe that's when you were working there?

An hour or two? And trains are to be our transportation salvation? What do you do with your evening plans when you're two hours late getting back home? Who gets the kids fed and off to baseball practice?

Heck, I hate waiting on a PLANE that's 2 hours late once a month, let along a train that I'd use daily.

In NYC, you either get used to it, or you leave. I left.

A lot of people have to pick up their kids from daycare. These places usually have very hefty fines for being late.

New Yorkers are used it.

Even if you drive, you run the risk of major and unpredictable delays, because the traffic is so heavy. So there's a lot of tolerance built into scheduling. (Indeed, you are more likely to be on time if you take public transportation.) They're really just a lot more laid back about punctuality there. I kind of liked it, frankly.