Should subsidies be reduced to the MTA?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

With the on a mission to reduce service leaving some neighbourhoods with next to no service, should the lose some of its current subsidies? For example areas that are poorly served by mass transit where folks rely on taxis, should those areas not have to pay for the taxi surcharge? I think with the amount of subsidies that the gets that they should be required to show what they are doing with those subsidies in terms of providing service. If they claim that ridership is low in certain areas of the city and they have to cut service, then those neighbourhoods should get something in return. Thoughts?

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I mean I understand some of your thinking, but first of all we need that money and don't even suggest a cut or else you'll have the taxi driver union cooking you breakfast, lunch, and dinner as they go beg Bloomberg! [Also in a way I think his livery cab plan is relatively elegant, if you're following that.]

 

However the sentence in bold, I've got one question: WHERE?

 

It's a well-known fact that taxis are disproportionately-centered in Manhattan. In Queens especially, finding a cab is an accomplishment, as in much of Brooklyn. I can't imagine they're too easy to find in SI either, and the Bronx is really hit or miss, usually miss. So really, the only place where people COULD rely on taxis is in Manhattan. And where in Manhattan is poorly served by buses? It's hard to think of somewhere not in close proximity to an under construction or in service subway / bus route. On top of that, even if you could name a spot in Manhattan poorly served, chances are they can afford to pay the surcharge!

 

The surcharge is basically a tax, and the fact it's very much hated is really just emblematic of the dumb hatred of taxes. The fact of the matter is that higher tax rates could solve the MTA's budget problems entirely, along with leading to less overcrowding in schools, and pretty much solving or quelling any government problem you name. But no, everybody hates the T-word. Honestly though, the fact of the matter is that you're always gonna pay the money somehow. Don't want higher taxes? A $3.75 fare to you too, sir. Sick of taxes and complaining about public schools? Have a $35,000 a year, fine madam. Everybody's always gonna pay it, as organizations need money.

 

So in conclusion of this mildly rambling post: we need to raise taxes and everybody needs to swallow it, as they'll pay it one way or another anyway. The situation you spoke of doesn't exist, and even if it did, see the previous sentence: surcharges and taxes are necessary and you'll end up paying it another way if you don't like it.

 

Basically where service cuts were made. Those people have to either be taking taxis or driving or being driven around. There are areas of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island that I'm sure have been left with either little or no service either during the weekends or almost entirely. Why should those communities be forced to pay a surcharge when they have little or no service at all? Also, if those communities have little or no service then those subsidies need to be examined in terms of where they are being used and who specifically they are benefiting. Subsidies are supposed to help all communities and if they're getting practically nothing in terms of services then the amount they contribute should be decreased proportionately.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I mean see my last post. Those are areas are probably equipped with cars to start with, and hence not taking taxis. If you don't take cabs, you don't pay the charge -- I haven't taken a cab in a few months, so I haven't been paying any charge. It's pretty simple like that.

 

And let's say that they are taking cabs. Again, like I said, let's just imagine that the surcharge is gone, right? The money has to turn up somewhere. Ooh look, the fare just went up / your income taxes went up. Or service got cut even more... Or the city budget got slashed more and the education funding collapsed as did the police funding and the FDNY funding... We all subsidize each other. I'm paying for the schools in your "no-bus" neighborhood without going to them, they can pay for my buses. I'm paying for your trash collection, you can pay for my sidewalk. The MTA surcharge may seem more specific because you can pen a name to it, but it's like every other tax, and anybody and everybody who rides a cab pays it. Just the way it works.

 

 

Yeah well they get subsidies from several sources and those subsidies should be better analyzed to make sure that they're being used properly. For example how can in the Q79 be cut and yet they are receiving a subsidy specifically for that line? They cut the line, but they're still getting the subsidy. :mad:

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[qjtransitmaster]

First off, the Q79 was a casualty of NIMBY idiots who killed ridership and wanted to have their cake and eat it, so I can't weep for them. Secondly, can you tell me what this specific subsidy is? I haven't actually heard of a subsidy that the MTA is keeping from the public meant to give them service.

 

So true but floral park was just one station surly they are other trip generators that could have saved the Q79

[Shortline Bus]

Instead of always dissing the MTA(they are at times corupt but so is most state agencies in Albany) putting him on the spot. I would love to hear what Garbaldi (or anyone else) wants to do? This is not to be rude but put him on the spot on what are his ideas and his solutions?

 

 

Let him become "Governor Garbaldi for a day and find out what he proposes?

 

 

 

Some important questions?

1)Should the continue to run the NYC subways/buses? If not who? Shouid the NYC Mayor appoint the head of this agency?

 

2) Who runs the NYC Buses? Should the Manhattan express routes become 'private' like Westchester and soon Nassau County? Or all NYC buses in all '5' boros?

 

 

3)Who runs the LIRR/Metro North and even Bridges/Tunnels aka Triboro Authority?

 

4)How should taxpayers pay for this new or private company(ies)that runs Metro NYC subways, buses and LIRR/Metro North?

 

 

This at least makes clear his views instead of the mixed messages he created in posts. Not meant to be rude but curious what Garbaldi (or anyone else) takes are instead of always posting his dislike of the is.

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

lol... I'll get back to you and Shortline when I come back from Whole Foods. I don't think well on an empty stomach.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

First off, the Q79 was a casualty of NIMBY idiots who killed ridership and wanted to have their cake and eat it, so I can't weep for them. Secondly, can you tell me what this specific subsidy is? I haven't actually heard of a subsidy that the MTA is keeping from the public meant to give them service.

 

So here is an example where the is collecting a subsidy but is providing no service for it... (Taken from NYDailyNews)

 

"Jim Trent, 65, founder and president of the Queens County Farm Museum, used to hop on the Q79 to get to the museum. But now it requires an arduous 2-mile walk or a pricy car service since he doesn't own a car.

 

Meanwhile, the museum is paying payroll taxes to the MTA to sustain service, he said.

 

"We lose the service and we're paying for the service - it's a double whammy," Trent said."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2011/06/14/2011-06-14_drive_to_bring_back_bus_service_civic_leaders_plan_a_reroute.html

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Delete

[Hawk Operator]

Instead of always dissing the MTA(they are at times corupt but so is any most state agency in Albany) putting him on would love to hear what Garbaldi wants to do? This is not to be rude but put him on the spot on what are his ideas and his solutions?

 

Some important questions?

1)Should the continue to run the NYC subways/buses? If not who? Shouid the NYC Mayor appoint the head of this agency?

 

2) Who runs the NYC Buses? Should the Manhattan express routes become 'private' like Westchester and soon Nassau County? Or all NYC buses in all '5' boros?

 

3)Who runs the LIRR/Metro North and even Bridges/Tunnels aka Triboro Authority?

 

4)How should taxpayers pay for this new or private company(ies)that runs Metro NYC subways, buses and LIRR/Metro North?

 

 

 

If I may, I would love to comment:

 

1. No, the MTA should be completely dismantled and all state funding should cease. All present managers, general superindentants and above should be retired or fired due to continued lack of performance. Canvass present working employees for those savvy enough to run and push papers. The NYC Council should be appointing a Bus/ Subway Transportation department head for four year terms, two years after the mayor's term begins. Further, supervision should be held to same standards as operating employees, and when they screw up (THINK snowstorm fiasco) should be downgraded to former position originally hired for (toss civil service law out.)

 

2. A Bus/ Subway Transportation Committee would run system, these folks would be the actual folks who use system. IE: Union leaders, politicians, community activists, selected and approved by local community in general elections. As for service providers "put all bus routes out to bid process every five years." Of course, employees would retain status with whoever won bids. As for subway, a private company governed by the above committee, with service requirements and mandated staffing levels.

 

3.MNR runs MNR, LIRR runs LIRR, or bid out every five years. As for the useless TBTA and MTAPD abolished. Bridges and Tunnels are in NYC, let NYC run them at cost.

 

4.Taxpayers don't pay for it, the private entities bidding and running them better learn quick how to turn a profit or they out. Then next in line takes it over.

 

The MTA is an overinflated bureaucracy that is wasting resources and unable to adapt, let private companies run it and give NYC's infrastructure back to NYC.

 

MTA draining us more and more everyday!

[Shortline Bus]

If I may, I would love to comment:

 

1. No, the MTA should be completely dismantled and all state funding should cease. All present managers, general superindentants and above should be retired or fired due to continued lack of performance. Canvass present working employees for those savvy enough to run and push papers. The NYC Council should be appointing a Bus/ Subway Transportation department head for four year terms, two years after the mayor's term begins. Further, supervision should be held to same standards as operating employees, and when they screw up (THINK snowstorm fiasco) should be downgraded to former position originally hired for (toss civil service law out.)

 

2. A Bus/ Subway Transportation Committee would run system, these folks would be the actual folks who use system. IE: Union leaders, politicians, community activists, selected and approved by local community in general elections. As for service providers "put all bus routes out to bid process every five years." Of course, employees would retain status with whoever won bids. As for subway, a private company governed by the above committee, with service requirements and mandated staffing levels.

 

3.MNR runs MNR, LIRR runs LIRR, or bid out every five years. As for the useless TBTA and MTAPD abolished. Bridges and Tunnels are in NYC, let NYC run them at cost.

 

4.Taxpayers don't pay for it, the private entities bidding and running them better learn quick how to turn a profit or they out. Then next in line takes it over.

 

The MTA is an overinflated bureaucracy that is wasting resources and unable to adapt, let private companies run it and give NYC's infrastructure back to NYC.

 

MTA draining us more and more everyday!

 

Hawk some great comments overall. While I don't agree with all of your propsals you make some excellent suggestions/arguments.

[checkmatechamp13]

With the on a mission to reduce service leaving some neighbourhoods with next to no service, should the lose some of its current subsidies? For example areas that are poorly served by mass transit where folks rely on taxis, should those areas not have to pay for the taxi surcharge? I think with the amount of subsidies that the gets that they should be required to show what they are doing with those subsidies in terms of providing service. If they claim that ridership is low in certain areas of the city and they have to cut service, then those neighbourhoods should get something in return. Thoughts?

 

You have to consider that there are very few areas with no service at all. Generally, they are at least served by "coverage" services, though that service might not run in the direction that the people need to go. For example, the areas served by the Q79 are still served by a local bus route, just not a north-south bus route, so you could make the argument that the tax is subsidizing the service that they have, which is most likely more expensive than the average route.

 

I mean I understand some of your thinking, but first of all we need that money and don't even suggest a cut or else you'll have the taxi driver union cooking you breakfast, lunch, and dinner as they go beg Bloomberg! [Also in a way I think his livery cab plan is relatively elegant, if you're following that.]

 

However the sentence in bold, I've got one question: WHERE?

 

It's a well-known fact that taxis are disproportionately-centered in Manhattan. In Queens especially, finding a cab is an accomplishment, as in much of Brooklyn. I can't imagine they're too easy to find in SI either, and the Bronx is really hit or miss, usually miss. So really, the only place where people COULD rely on taxis is in Manhattan. And where in Manhattan is poorly served by buses? It's hard to think of somewhere not in close proximity to an under construction or in service subway / bus route. On top of that, even if you could name a spot in Manhattan poorly served, chances are they can afford to pay the surcharge!

 

The surcharge is basically a tax, and the fact it's very much hated is really just emblematic of the dumb hatred of taxes. The fact of the matter is that higher tax rates could solve the MTA's budget problems entirely, along with leading to less overcrowding in schools, and pretty much solving or quelling any government problem you name. But no, everybody hates the T-word. Honestly though, the fact of the matter is that you're always gonna pay the money somehow. Don't want higher taxes? A $3.75 fare to you too, sir. Sick of taxes and complaining about public schools? Have a $35,000 a year, fine madam. Everybody's always gonna pay it, as organizations need money.

 

So in conclusion of this mildly rambling post: we need to raise taxes and everybody needs to swallow it, as they'll pay it one way or another anyway. The situation you spoke of doesn't exist, and even if it did, see the previous sentence: surcharges and taxes are necessary and you'll end up paying it another way if you don't like it.

 

Read my blog for my solution for overcrowded schools. Actually, I don't think that overcrowding is that large a problem, so I think the money saved by that proposal could be taken away from the DOE completely and used to fund something else (and for the record, I'm an NYC public school student).

 

If nothing else, the DOE could be mandated to use those savings to fund the Student MetroCard program, which is an education-related expense.

 

Yeah well they get subsidies from several sources and those subsidies should be better analyzed to make sure that they're being used properly. For example how can in the Q79 be cut and yet they are receiving a subsidy specifically for that line? They cut the line, but they're still getting the subsidy. :mad:

 

I'll agree with you there. If the tax was specifically dedicated to providing transit to a specific business and a main route (that services that business) is eliminated, that tax should be reduced (it shouldn't be completely eliminated because they still have the Q46, which costs money to operate)

 

I think the tax should be reduced based on the importance of the route to that business (the MTA and the business could work this out). For example, the Q79 was a major north-south route for that area, so that business should have its taxes reduced more than a business in Midtown Manhattan who lost the M1 on the weekends or something much less noticable).

 

First off, the Q79 was a casualty of NIMBY idiots who killed ridership and wanted to have their cake and eat it, so I can't weep for them. Secondly, can you tell me what this specific subsidy is? I haven't actually heard of a subsidy that the MTA is keeping from the public meant to give them service.

 

It was mentioned in the beginning of the thread (actually, I think it was why this thread was started). It was some type of tax on a museum that lost the Q79, but the tax remained at the same rate.

 

You do have a point about the NIMBYs, but you have to consider that it is still going to be unfair to some people to tax them when they lost a major route in that area: The people in Little Neck had nothing to do with the NIMBYs in Floral Park who wanted to stop the extension of the Q79. They might not've cared for the route, but they didn't contribute to its demise by preventing an extension that would've increased ridership.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Hawk some great comments overall. While I don't agree with all of your propsals you make some excellent suggestions/arguments.

 

I agree with Hawk's comments. What I would add is cracking down on farebeaters and implementing new technologies to make service more efficient. If you have more buses on time and more people paying that right there saves money even if it is a small amount. Less overtime and a higher farebox recovery. I would also create some sort of incentive for workers to perform at higher levels.

 

I would also look to have individual subway stations run by private companies so they would be responsible for upkeeping the stations.

[checkmatechamp13]

I agree with Hawk's comments. What I would add is cracking down on farebeaters and implementing new technologies to make service more efficient. If you have more buses on time and more people paying that right there saves money even if it is a small amount. Less overtime and a higher farebox recovery. I would also create some sort of incentive for workers to perform at higher levels.

 

I would also look to have individual subway stations run by private companies so they would be responsible for upkeeping the stations.

 

You know my stance on the first one (don't comment on it), but I'll agree that they should be trying to speed up the buses through +SBS+ and limited-stop service (I doubt +SBS+ really requires the time and expense that they are pretending it does).

 

I agree that they should try to do something like an "Adopt-A-Station" strategy to help maintain the stations (though really big repairs would still have to be done by the MTA). I know this is controversial, but I think they should sell naming rights to companies (though the station's name should still reflect the location of it).

 

It could be something like: Times Square-Disney, or Herald Square-Citibank (if the company happens to have a main location nearby, that's even better)

[Shortline Bus]

You know my stance on the first one (don't comment on it), but I'll agree that they should be trying to speed up the buses through +SBS+ and limited-stop service (I doubt +SBS+ really requires the time and expense that they are pretending it does).

 

I agree that they should try to do something like an "Adopt-A-Station" strategy to help maintain the stations (though really big repairs would still have to be done by the MTA). I know this is controversial, but I think they should sell naming rights to companies (though the station's name should still reflect the location of it).

 

It could be something like: Times Square-Disney, or Herald Square-Citibank (if the company happens to have a main location nearby, that's even better)

 

In Philly, (SEPTA) the city's mass transit provider has already renamed the Broad/Pattison station(site of the Philles/Eagles stadiums and 76ers/Flyers sports arena)"ATT station.'

 

What I do agree with Hawk is that the after a major shake up in which they would no longer run (NYCT)subways and buses, should only run LIRR and Metro North.

[qjtransitmaster]

You know my stance on the first one (don't comment on it), but I'll agree that they should be trying to speed up the buses through +SBS+ and limited-stop service (I doubt +SBS+ really requires the time and expense that they are pretending it does).

 

I agree that they should try to do something like an "Adopt-A-Station" strategy to help maintain the stations (though really big repairs would still have to be done by the MTA). I know this is controversial, but I think they should sell naming rights to companies (though the station's name should still reflect the location of it).

 

It could be something like: Times Square-Disney, or Herald Square-Citibank (if the company happens to have a main location nearby, that's even better)

go to a meeting and suggest it that has good and bad however

[qjtransitmaster]

If I may, I would love to comment:

 

1. No, the MTA should be completely dismantled and all state funding should cease. All present managers, general superindentants and above should be retired or fired due to continued lack of performance. Canvass present working employees for those savvy enough to run and push papers. The NYC Council should be appointing a Bus/ Subway Transportation department head for four year terms, two years after the mayor's term begins. Further, supervision should be held to same standards as operating employees, and when they screw up (THINK snowstorm fiasco) should be downgraded to former position originally hired for (toss civil service law out.)

 

2. A Bus/ Subway Transportation Committee would run system, these folks would be the actual folks who use system. IE: Union leaders, politicians, community activists, selected and approved by local community in general elections. As for service providers "put all bus routes out to bid process every five years." Of course, employees would retain status with whoever won bids. As for subway, a private company governed by the above committee, with service requirements and mandated staffing levels.

 

3.MNR runs MNR, LIRR runs LIRR, or bid out every five years. As for the useless TBTA and MTAPD abolished. Bridges and Tunnels are in NYC, let NYC run them at cost.

 

4.Taxpayers don't pay for it, the private entities bidding and running them better learn quick how to turn a profit or they out. Then next in line takes it over.

 

The MTA is an overinflated bureaucracy that is wasting resources and unable to adapt, let private companies run it and give NYC's infrastructure back to NYC.

 

MTA draining us more and more everyday!

 

So about the managers on the subway which one is the worst?? Is there one worse than the A train's manager?? cause performance on the A is horrid

[checkmatechamp13]

go to a meeting and suggest it that has good and bad however

 

I went to one last year, and they ignored all of my suggestions (they didn't even give me the courtesy of saying "We couldn't find the time to study your suggestions". They just ignored every single one of them, and some were pretty good)

 

I might go this year (they have a meeting on June 27th, I believe). Who knows: Maybe they'll listen this time (If nothing else, I'll be able to show how pissed I am)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I went to one last year, and they ignored all of my suggestions (they didn't even give me the courtesy of saying "We couldn't find the time to study your suggestions". They just ignored every single one of them, and some were pretty good)

 

I might go this year (they have a meeting on June 27th, I believe). Who knows: Maybe they'll listen this time (If nothing else, I'll be able to show how pissed I am)

 

Well after seeing how you presented your ideas I can understand why they dismissed you the way they did. You should take 2 - 3 ideas that you think are really good, develop them and then propose them. If you go up there rambling like you were in that video, no one is going to listen to you. Even I was like whoa whoa after the first few minutes. It's like you were trying to squeeze in every idea that you had thought of. :eek:

 

One idea you could discuss perhaps would be how to improve bus service on Staten Island. Come up with say three good ideas and then present them. You could discuss how limited stop service is needed and the S53 and such. Actually give me the details of this because maybe I can go to it. I certainly have 2 - 3 things that I'd like to propose. It's rather pathetic that I work up the block from the Madison Avenue building and never go there.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well after seeing how you presented your ideas I can understand why they dismissed you the way they did. You should take 2 - 3 ideas that you think are really good, develop them and then propose them. If you go up there rambling like you were in that video, no one is going to listen to you. Even I was like whoa whoa after the first few minutes. It's like you were trying to squeeze in every idea that you had thought of. :eek:

 

One idea you could discuss perhaps would be how to improve bus service on Staten Island. Come up with say three good ideas and then present them. You could discuss how limited stop service is needed and the S53 and such. Actually give me the details of this because maybe I can go to it. I certainly have 2 - 3 things that I'd like to propose. It's rather pathetic that I work up the block from the Madison Avenue building and never go there.

 

Thanks for the tip. :tup:

 

I had a small booklet that I created on my own showing the details and advantages of each idea (Would it have killed them to look at it after I handed it to them?). You're right that I should've just taken a couple of ideas and presented them in detail. If I go on Monday, I'll try that.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if they actually said "We were inspired to give the S53 a limited because of a 16-year old boy." :cool:

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[qjtransitmaster]

Thanks for the tip. :tup:

 

I had a small booklet that I created on my own showing the details and advantages of each idea (Would it have killed them to look at it after I handed it to them?). You're right that I should've just taken a couple of ideas and presented them in detail. If I go on Monday, I'll try that.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if they actually said "We were inspired to give the S53 a limited because of a 16-year old boy." :cool:

 

I tried something similar with NJT however I knew some of my ideas werent developed enough and too many variables were in place