Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Federal Aid For MTA?


mark1447

Recommended Posts

Advocates for mass transit users in New York City are crossing their fingers that millions of dollars in federal aid makes its way to the the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

 

"We're really hopeful about its chances," Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign told Good Day NY on Tuesday.

 

"Eighty-four percent of the nation's transit systems have cut service. We'll see. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Menendez and Dodd are sponsors."

 

New York could get $250 million through the Public Transportation Preservation Act.

 

"It could help stave off cuts to service but still leaves a significant gap," added Benjamin Kabak, author of the blog SecondAvenueSagas.com .

 

VIDEO and Source:

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/traffic/mta/federal-aid-for-mta-20100601

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances are, some service will still be cut. But if it means that the (M2) and (V) can remain the way they are then I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advocates for mass transit users in New York City are crossing their fingers that millions of dollars in federal aid makes its way to the the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

 

"We're really hopeful about its chances," Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign told Good Day NY on Tuesday.

 

"Eighty-four percent of the nation's transit systems have cut service. We'll see. Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Menendez and Dodd are sponsors."

 

New York could get $250 million through the Public Transportation Preservation Act.

 

"It could help stave off cuts to service but still leaves a significant gap," added Benjamin Kabak, author of the blog SecondAvenueSagas.com .

 

VIDEO and Source:

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/traffic/mta/federal-aid-for-mta-20100601

 

Good news, but people are going to develop stiff joints keeping their fingers crossed for so long.

 

J.W. & Co. can receive $250 million or they can receive $2.50. I personally don't care what they get, but I really am eager to see that every last tenth of a penny is accounted for, receipts included, and that this money is directed to where it can have the largest positive impact for the revenue employees and for the riders. I keep hearing about "Hope" this and "Hope" that. That's all fine and dandy, but lately, to me anyway, HOPE means nothing more than than Helping Our Pockets Expand, and W. and his boys have been doing a WHOLE LOTTA HOPE-ing. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of the (MTA) and every other mass transit agency in this country, I really hope the Senate passes this bill. Of course, the (MTA) and Albany better learn their lesson, if they do get rescue money, not to keep making the same fiscal mistakes over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget a bailout. That's just an excuse to stay the same. This financial situation is forcing good change. Get bailed out and stay the same, then end up back in the same hole a year later. What's the point of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of the (MTA) and every other mass transit agency in this country, I really hope the Senate passes this bill. Of course, the (MTA) and Albany better learn their lesson, if they do get rescue money, not to keep making the same fiscal mistakes over and over again.

 

The good thing is, lame duck Paterson won't be seeking another term so chances are we'll have a governor with more "experience", shall I say. If Spitzer were still in office we'd be nowhere near this mess. Damn that stupid whore!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn that stupid whore!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

 

by that im hoping you mean Ashley Dupree lol. and yes, if the station agents get to keep their jobs after a bailout, they will probably be on the chopping block NEXT year when we're projected to have ANOTHER $400 million deficit at the (MTA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by that im hoping you mean Ashley Dupree lol. and yes, if the station agents get to keep their jobs after a bailout, they will probably be on the chopping block NEXT year when we're projected to have ANOTHER $400 million deficit at the (MTA)

 

Yea, its just delaying the inevetable. The MTA needs to find a way to do more with less money, its just the reality of things. The state got greedy when they had all the tax revenue coming in from Wall St, now that cash cow is gone, its time to cut the waste, and run things leaner and more efficient, as if the state was a real corporation, make a surplus a goal every fiscal year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good thing is, lame duck Paterson won't be seeking another term so chances are we'll have a governor with more "experience", shall I say. If Spitzer were still in office we'd be nowhere near this mess. Damn that stupid whore!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

 

The MTA has been putting off making payments to its creditors, as well as making infrastructure repairs, since the early 90's. Pataki, Spitzer, Patterson- none of them actually got the MTA to change its spending habits or even acknowledged the problems. This crisis has been in the making for many, many years. While Patterson is ineffective, it is not his fault. The economy crashed, and all the money that the MTA used to squeak by with from real estate taxes dried up. Spitzer had time to change the MTA but didn't, and there is no money left for the state to give to the MTA. Any reform is useless for fixing the current crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pray that this works but with this said, this is something that would work for this year. What about this time next year or the year after that? The (MTA) has got to change how they do business, with or without this money. I just hope for the sake of the all the changes that are supposed to happen to my neighborhood in the Bronx, I pray to God that this measure is approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bailout won't help anything... The MTA waists so much money system wide. The MTA needs to slim down its management and operating costs. Review each bus and rail route carefully run by run... then make the appropriate changes. These up coming changes may hurt, some may be irrational but change is badly needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were running the MTA, even if I got the $250 million (which would be more than enough to save the $93 million in service cuts), I would keep the majority of the cuts on the table, only removing the worst ones, or the ones with the most protest. Since the Student MetroCards are at risk, I would put the remainder of the money towards them.

Currently, the MTA says that it cost $214 million to fund the Student MetroCard program. Since the city and state put in $70 million ($45 million city, $25 million state), that means that the MTA is eating the other $144 million. $250 million - $144 million = $106 million, enough to restore all of the service to current levels.

I sent a letter to the MTA describing the reductions that I thought were the worst, and calculated that it would take slightly under $10 million to restore the cuts that I felt were the most painful. If I were running the MTA, I would restore the $10 million in service cuts, ehile keeping the other $83 million, and since $106 million - $10 million = $96 million, that money could be shifted over to the next year, or used to lessen the rest of the budget gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the money would be good, but the job doesn't stop there. If you ask me, the (MTA) needs to be completely dismantled, and then comprehensively restructured. This agency in the present day is more rotted through than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was in 1990. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. It's like they've got to blow it up and start all over again.

 

With $250 million, I'd at least keep the (M2), (N), (V) and (W) trains as they are now. I also want to see the (G) actually serve Queens Blvd on weekends and look at expanding Port Washington LIRR service from Bayside west. I'd also keep M8 weekend service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. It's like they've got to blow it up and start all over again.

 

With $250 million, I'd at least keep the (M2), (N), (V) and (W) trains as they are now. I'd also actually want to see the (G) actually serve Queens Blvd on weekends and look at expanding Port Washington LIRR service from Bayside west and run most West Hempstead train service into the city seven days a week, perhaps to Atlantic Terminal if there's not enough space at Penn. I'd also keep weekend M8 and Q76 and overnight M66 bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I still say at the very least the (W) should be kept for rush hour service. I do think that the (W) could be discontinued during the midday hours as it isn't really 'that' crowded after maybe 42nd St.

 

As for the (M) I'm mixed about it as I do feel riders from that section should have an option of a direct to Midtown line vs cramming onto the (L). And despite the (L) as the more direct route, a person needs to factor in the walk down to the (L) platform and the wait for the train [if they can get on it], then walk up to the (F) and wait for it to arrive. So in the end the single seat ride maybe better and less of a hassle. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I still say at the very least the (W) should be kept for rush hour service. I do think that the (W) could be discontinued during the midday hours as it isn't really 'that' crowded after maybe 42nd St.

 

It'd be best to see the trains operate during peak hours only (e.g. in the morning for one hour and in the evening for one hour, just like the (Z))...in the morning the first train can come from the yard and run light to Astoria, and start at, let's say, 7:15 (like the (Z)) and head downtown. They can be taken OOS at Whitehall and head to CI, while the last train from Astoria that gets to Whitehall can sit on the middle track until 4:45.

 

As for the (M) I'm mixed about it as I do feel riders from that section should have an option of a direct to Midtown line vs cramming onto the (L). And despite the (L) as the more direct route, a person needs to factor in the walk down to the (L) platform and the wait for the train [if they can get on it], then walk up to the (F) and wait for it to arrive. So in the end the single seat ride maybe better and less of a hassle. Just saying.

 

The thing is, with the (L) it's more frequent so they don't have to wait no more than 3-4 minutes. Besides, they have the QM24 that runs through Middle Village and Glendale for a reason. The worst part is, there is no time savings factor with this new line. In addition, I can guarantee that with the new line in place they will still use the (L) train. If people want faster service to Manhattan, they should introduce skip-stop service along the line to shave off about five-ten minutes at most. That's my input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, look at the transfer from Myrtle-wycoff, that alone can take a bit of time to get from platform to platform and then the (L) trains are crowded meaning you might have to pass up a few trains. You can't look at it from the view of losing the (V). You have to think of other factors too. So I'm going to keep an open mind about it. If it works it works, if not then they should change it back after 2-3 weeks. But point is, nothing will change the fact the (M2) would still go to at most Broad St and most of the times Chambers. So you are not really saving much by keeping things 'as is'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, look at the transfer from Myrtle-wycoff, that alone can take a bit of time to get from platform to platform and then the (L) trains are crowded meaning you might have to pass up a few trains. You can't look at it from the view of losing the (V). You have to think of other factors too. So I'm going to keep an open mind about it. If it works it works, if not then they should change it back after 2-3 weeks. But point is, nothing will change the fact the (M2) would still go to at most Broad St and most of the times Chambers. So you are not really saving much by keeping things 'as is'.

 

On the scale of something as massive as a subway service change, I think it would take longer than 2-3 weeks for the MTA to see if the plan is working alright. Considering all of the work that they put into changing the signs, I would give it about 3 - 4 months before the M and V are split up again (with the M going to Chambers or Broad Streets of course).

On the bus level, I would say that certain changes could be made in a few weeks, since the signs are easier to change, though I think that there would be very few, if any changes. Even with the bus changes, I would give it a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, with the (L) it's more frequent so they don't have to wait no more than 3-4 minutes. Besides, they have the QM24 that runs through Middle Village and Glendale for a reason. The worst part is, there is no time savings factor with this new line. In addition, I can guarantee that with the new line in place they will still use the (L) train. If people want faster service to Manhattan, they should introduce skip-stop service along the line to shave off about five-ten minutes at most. That's my input.

I once read on SubChat that the reason they haven't done skip-stop service on the (L) is because many of the stations west of Myrtle-Wyckoff have ridership that's too high for the reduced service that skip-stop would bring. Sort of the same situation that existed on the (1) line which led to the demise of the (9) train. Now I'm not sure if that really is the case and I personally would like to see skip-stop service on the (L) line. Perhaps we can call the other train the ( K ). You would also want to run the trains more frequently than the present (L) service (perhaps every 2-3 minutes instead of the current 4-6) so each "skipped" station would still have the same amount of service as before. You would then want to have terminal stations that can turn trains faster. 8th Avenue is a lousy terminal and Rockaway Parkway isn't much better. I think, long-term, a northerly extension of the Canarsie Line to 42nd, maybe 59th Street via 9th Avenue would help significantly improve (L) or ( K )/(L) service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, long-term, a northerly extension of the Canarsie Line to 42nd, maybe 59th Street via 9th Avenue would help significantly improve (L) or (K)/(L) service.

 

By the time that happens, this planet will be abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once read on SubChat that the reason they haven't done skip-stop service on the (L) is because many of the stations west of Myrtle-Wyckoff have ridership that's too high for the reduced service that skip-stop would bring. Sort of the same situation that existed on the (1) line which led to the demise of the (9) train. Now I'm not sure if that really is the case and I personally would like to see skip-stop service on the (L) line. Perhaps we can call the other train the ( K ). You would also want to run the trains more frequently than the present (L) service (perhaps every 2-3 minutes instead of the current 4-6) so each "skipped" station would still have the same amount of service as before. You would then want to have terminal stations that can turn trains faster. 8th Avenue is a lousy terminal and Rockaway Parkway isn't much better. I think, long-term, a northerly extension of the Canarsie Line to 42nd, maybe 59th Street via 9th Avenue would help significantly improve (L) or ( K )/(L) service.

I believe the point of skip-stop is to run less cars, but to 'speed up service'. For the (L), as pointed out, just has too many people so it need to have basically a train at every station. There is no way the (L) can run fewer trains and skip stop is just not an option for the (L). Even the (1) showed that skip stop doesn't work because each station demands were different and not evened out like it is for the (J)(Z).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you run more trains, you can have the same frequency as now at the "skipped" stations. The problem is, there have to be terminal stations that will be able to turn more trains per hour than 8th Avenue or Rockaway Parkway are capable of doing. Track capacity on the (L) has to be capable of supporting train intervals more frequent than every 4-6 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you run more trains, you can have the same frequency as now at the "skipped" stations. The problem is, there have to be terminal stations that will be able to turn more trains per hour than 8th Avenue or Rockaway Parkway are capable of doing. Track capacity on the (L) has to be capable of supporting train intervals more frequent than every 4-6 minutes.

 

Eighth Avenue is not so much of a bad terminal at all...the switch is right by the station itself...as for Rockaway Parkway, the trains turn too far from the terminal...this is the same reason why not all (E) trains go to Jamaica Center and to 179th Street instead.

 

Yep, the (L) does run every 4-6 minutes as the schedule says...but if the (L) were to be split into two and have an (L) train making 'A' stops and an (L) train making 'B' stops then there can be a way to provide frequent service to ALL stations. The (L) can operate every three minutes instead, with 'A'-stop trains operating every six and 'B'-stop trains operating every six as well, and the stops served by both trains will be served every three minutes...the most passengers have to wait is six minutes at these 'A' or 'B' stops anyway because that's how long the (L) takes to come at most anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.