-
- NYC MTA Fail(ing)
The MTA is running out of money and they voted today 12:1 to cut service, raise rates and generally shaft the people of NYC:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/mta-board-meets-to-vote-on-fare-hikes/?partner=rss&emc=rss
You can go here, type in your zip code and see how they plan to reduce your local service:
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/opm/mtacuts/index.shtm
I live in Brooklyn, and can't wait to see "Subway G - Fewer Trains". I'm not sure how you can get 'fewer' than 1...
-
693 - Reply by gr, Mar 25.
They could put fewer cars in each one! (Because, um, that would make sense...)
Perhaps they'll recommend you start taking the Q!
-
92 - Reply by Sung, Mar 25.
The G train already has fewer cars! It literally comes up to the middle of the platform. FAIL!
-
693
- Reply by gr, Mar 25.
How does fewer cars actually result in any cost saving? Is it just the fuel and maintenance?
-
01 - Reply by epc, Mar 25.
It's important to focus anger and attention on to the NY State Legislature which boxed the MTA into this corner over the last 20 years by both requiring a balanced budget while stripping away much of the funding from the state and reducing remaining funding to be highly cyclical (like dependence on mortgage tax receipts).
-
455 - Reply by oceank8, Mar 25.
I gotta say, although this is very stupid for NY; I am still jealous of the fact that you even have trains. Here in SoCal (especially LA) there are no trains and no way to get around without driving yourself and spending a heck of a lot of money!
-
0392 - Reply by GregT, Mar 25.
"by both requiring a balanced budget while stripping away much of the funding from the state and reducing remaining funding to be highly cyclical (like dependence on mortgage tax receipts)."
So paying for it with money we don't have but we borrow from our children is somehow a better plan? And we forget the illegal strike that the transit workers had a couple of years ago? That's got nothing at all to do with it. After all, it was about "respect", remember?
-
759 - Reply by RBoulanger, Mar 26.
epc is totally correct. Don't blame the MTA when the state legislature refused to consider many other funding options included tolls on the East river bridges and/or a payroll tax surcharge.
Check out my rant on this topic in last week's Robert Moses thread.
http://www.snooth.com/talk/topic/friday-night-thoughts/#http://www.snooth.com/talk/topic/new-york-according-to-robert-moses-or-realtors/
As for the transit workers with their cushy guaranteed pay raises, that's a whole other ball of wax.
-
0392
- Reply by GregT, Mar 26.
Nice rant. But I'm completely opposed to tolling the bridges unless they also toll Broadway and move part of the City government out of Manhattan. And remember, it will also make Manhattan even more expensive. If you have to do business in Manhattan, your costs will go up and time spent in toll lanes will delay everything. Moreover, why should the people in Queens for example, not have the same access to their government as the people in Manhattan? Or be entirely cut off from the Mainland. So let Manhattanites pay their fair share too and toll their streets.
-
759
- Reply by RBoulanger, Mar 26.
Bear in mind that I use these bridges every day, but I still support their tolling. I believe the vast majority of people commuting in/out of NYC via car are doing so as a luxury and not because the bridges are free - there are very good mass transit alternatives.
There will be NO toll lanes (they don't have space). The toll collection idea is similar to the dead congestion pricing scheme - the tolling would be conducted electronically - I think Iron Mike's computer studs who built 311 could come up with something. In fact, it might even reduce traffic over the bridges because they will no longer be free.
Of course tolling will raise costs in Manhattan, but what about everyone's (both outer bourgh residents and Manhattanites) commute going up by at least a dollar a day? That has regressively raised everyone's costs. Moreover, remember that this rate hike is not just for buses and subways. Commuter rail ticket costs will go up by ~25% and the MTA bridges (Triboro/RFK - soon to be $6.50, Henry Hudson, Bronx Whitestone, Throgs Neck) and tunnels (Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery) are going up by a similar amount.
So, beyond some historical abnormality that has some of NYC's bridges controlled by the Port Authority (tolls to get out of NJ), some by the MTA (tolls both ways), and some by the city DOT (free!), why shouldn't they all be tolled? Why is the Triboro $6.50 now, but the Queensboro free?
I don't really get your access to government argument. I live 7 miles from City Hall, but I could walk or cycle there for free if I really wanted to. Someone in Williamsburg, Park Slope, or Brooklyn Heights could also walk or cycle over an East river bridge for free to go to City Hall too. Moreover, the vast majority of people in Queens would not drive into Manhattan to access their government - they'd take the subway. However, since when has access to government been a factor in our transportation pricing.
Finally, on the ject of Manhattanites paying their fair share, we've agreed that tolling the bridges would raise costs in Manhattan. These costs will be passed on in the form of increased prices for goods and services. And as for the 12% of Manhattan households who have access to a car, I hope they didn't buy that car to drive around their island's crappy, congested streets. They will pay some of their fair share every time to leave their island.
