MTA stats show more subway trains are late

[GojiMet86]

Now that we're talking about delays and capacity, maybe it's just me, but the west side of Manhattan seems to be more crowded as of late. A lot of people depend on the , and what I've noticed on the have been more delays and more crowded trains, especially during the rush. There were at least about 11 or 12 days that I had let the that arrived into the station go because of big crowds. You'll see this a lot at 96th, where the 2 express lines keep dumping people to the only local line.

[qjtransitmaster]

However, the areas that express buses run (for the most part) use them in an efficient manner.

lol not outside Staten island and south Brooklyn express buses are for outer areas to connect with the subway network. Want a solution obliterate housing projects increase LIRR service and capacity create REALISTIC fares for inner city travel. Improved feeder bus service and collaboration with other agencies to perfect regional travel. If counties can't be bothered to make a realistic bus network let entrepreneurs take over and use actual customer data to determine bus routes.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

lol not outside Staten island and south Brooklyn express buses are for outer areas to connect with the subway network. Want a solution obliterate housing projects increase LIRR service and capacity create REALISTIC fares for inner city travel. Improved feeder bus service and collaboration with other agencies to perfect regional travel. If counties can't be bothered to make a realistic bus network let entrepreneurs take over and use actual customer data to determine bus routes.

It is the LIRR for a reason. You can't just pack thousands of city riders on the train. There's a reason why the fares are set up like that too; LI'ers want the train to cater specifically to suburban long island, as it's intentions were made. The stops within city limits are for any travels which aren't CBD oriented, and don't receive much service to begin with. The only exception is the Port Washington Line, where people utilize it from northern Queens.

 

We have feeder railroad service, we've had feeder railroad service, and look how that's worked out (if that's what you're talking about). Some very good examples of that are the current Q36 LNP alignment, the n62, and the multiple bus routes which serve neigborhoods to a LIRR station or MNRR station (like the Bx31, Q31, and the many other Flushing and Jamaica routes), you'll see that mostly nobody utilizes it to the MNRR, moreso for the subway, and the subway can only hold so much. At least with bus service, it is more flexible.

 

See, most (if not all) bus systems in America do not profit at all, and you want to make entrepreneurs take over these divisions? Forget the stigma of buses here, but these people create fields to specific make a profit. Look at the PBL's, NICE bus that's exactly what would happen, if not worse.

[bobtehpanda]

Now that we're talking about delays and capacity, maybe it's just me, but the west side of Manhattan seems to be more crowded as of late. A lot of people depend on the , and what I've noticed on the have been more delays and more crowded trains, especially during the rush. There were at least about 11 or 12 days that I had let the that arrived into the station go because of big crowds. You'll see this a lot at 96th, where the 2 express lines keep dumping people to the only local line.

 

Until new South Ferry is up and running, this is going to remain the case, since SF loop cannot turn that many trains.

[SubwayGuy]

Yes, it is a capacity issue. Bingo, now we're on to something.

But here's the thing. Many of you are blaming the MTA for it. That's exactly what politicians want. So you won't blame them. The MTA is a convenient scapegoat they can underfund, raid the coffers of to pay for Albany's gaffes, and howl and hiss at whenever service has to be cut during an economic downturn, or when fares have to be raised.

 

Even if you or I were put in charge of the MTA tomorrow, declared this issue #1, and spent every second trying to alleviate capacity issues by drafting new lines...you need politicians and government to get involved to make any of that happen.

 

The original 28 IRT subway stations were built in 4 years from 1900-1904. But what you all conveniently forget is that the desire to build such a thing went all the way back to Alfred Ely Beach's illegal "pneumatic tube." Even as London built the early Underground in the 60's...1860's, that is...we pooh-poohed that over here in America. That was Europe...surely a subway couldn't work here! We continued to build els until the blizzard of 1888 showed how that could backfire. And it still took 12 more years until ground was broken while politicians deliberated and debated, fought and financed, and argued and agitated.

 

The IRT did NOT build the original tunnels as you'll recall. The city did. The IRT was only the operator. The MTA is the operator today. Even if they had infinite funding, they would still need politicians to get ANYTHING done.

 

So stop blaming the MTA, and stop looking for half baked solutions. Put the blame where it belongs...squarely at the feet of our elected "leaders" who are too busy raiding the coffers of the MTA to pay for their pet programs rather than giving the city the rail network, public safety, and real estate fairness it needs in a 21st century dominated by overcrowding, underemployment, skyrocketing rents, and the mentally ill everywhere among us.

[Daniel The Cool]

It makes me wonder why people are even demanding an increase of and service when there's already issues

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, it is a capacity issue. Bingo, now we're on to something.

But here's the thing. Many of you are blaming the MTA for it. That's exactly what politicians want. So you won't blame them. The MTA is a convenient scapegoat they can underfund, raid the coffers of to pay for Albany's gaffes, and howl and hiss at whenever service has to be cut during an economic downturn, or when fares have to be raised.

 

Even if you or I were put in charge of the MTA tomorrow, declared this issue #1, and spent every second trying to alleviate capacity issues by drafting new lines...you need politicians and government to get involved to make any of that happen.

 

The original 28 IRT subway stations were built in 4 years from 1900-1904. But what you all conveniently forget is that the desire to build such a thing went all the way back to Alfred Ely Beach's illegal "pneumatic tube." Even as London built the early Underground in the 60's...1860's, that is...we pooh-poohed that over here in America. That was Europe...surely a subway couldn't work here! We continued to build els until the blizzard of 1888 showed how that could backfire. And it still took 12 more years until ground was broken while politicians deliberated and debated, fought and financed, and argued and agitated.

 

The IRT did NOT build the original tunnels as you'll recall. The city did. The IRT was only the operator. The MTA is the operator today. Even if they had infinite funding, they would still need politicians to get ANYTHING done.

 

So stop blaming the MTA, and stop looking for half baked solutions. Put the blame where it belongs...squarely at the feet of our elected "leaders" who are too busy raiding the coffers of the MTA to pay for their pet programs rather than giving the city the rail network, public safety, and real estate fairness it needs in a 21st century dominated by overcrowding, underemployment, skyrocketing rents, and the mentally ill everywhere among us.

Actually I won't stop blaming the because the idea that we just need to keep funding the and not demand accountability is ridiculous.  Now I understand that they need more money and agree that they should be better funded, but I'm sorry, I have a problem with one station costing one billion dollars, and please spare me with the crappola about most of it came from federal funding.  Doesn't matter.  That is still taxpayer money and it should be used responsibly and not wasted on "lavish" non-essentials.  Even if we were funding the more, that wouldn't solve all of the problems because you still have out of control employee costs that the has to contend with that are increasing at a rate far higher than inflation, which does impact other areas of their operation overall. 

[SubwayGuy]

Actually I won't stop blaming the because the idea that we just need to keep funding the and not demand accountability is ridiculous.  Now I understand that they need more money and agree that they should be better funded, but I'm sorry, I have a problem with one station costing one billion dollars, and please spare me with the crappola about most of it came from federal funding.  Doesn't matter.  That is still taxpayer money and it should be used responsibly and not wasted on "lavish" non-essentials.  Even if we were funding the more, that wouldn't solve all of the problems because you still have out of control employee costs that the has to contend with that are increasing at a rate far higher than inflation, which does impact other areas of their operation overall. 

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again every time someone mentions the "out of control" costs of running a public transportation system.

 

Government is SUPPOSED to subsidize public transportation because it is inherently unprofitable. Which is why government gets involved in it in the first place. The idea is they are supposed to keep it afloat.

 

Why? Because it is an ENABLER to the entire regional economy, and without it gridlock would ensue costing the city and state billions of dollars every year in lost tax revenue as more people avoid congestion, or sit idling in traffic wasting money on gas and decide not to spend other discretionary income, as goods are late to market or don't arrive at all so they cannot be sold, or as perishable goods...perish.

 

Government has FAILED to properly fund the MTA for it's basic operation, let alone systemwide expansion that has been needed for over 50 years. Politicians have been agitating for a lot of the crap that you've seen getting built recently. They love the Fulton Street Transit Center, even though it's idiotic and adds nothing to service or capacity. But it lets the MTA bring in rent revenue for building another giant EFFING MALL (just what this country needs) downtown, so they can point and go "look how much money they're making...why are they always broke?" as they divert more funding away from public transportation.

 

Remember you still have dedicated MTA payroll taxes that are being dedicated to...not the MTA...once they are being collected.

 

Take the blinders off. Follow the money...the real money, not the pittance of a budget the MTA manages. The state, the federal budget. Follow THAT. There are only two ways left to get things done in this country anymore, and none of them are about doing what's right: you twist their arm, or you exchange favors. That's a huge problem.

 

The accountability model has serious flaws. Sometimes there isn't a person to blame. Sometimes the wrong person gets blamed. You want accountability? Start holding elected officials to it. Mass class action lawsuits against them based on failed campaign promises that were never seriously attempted. STOP LETTING THESE RICH A**HOLES LIE AND BRIBE YOU FOR YOUR VOTE WITH PROMISES AND PHONY VALUES THEN TURN AROUND AND SCREW YOU TO HELP THEIR CORPORATE DONORS.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I've said this before and I'll say it again every time someone mentions the "out of control" costs of running a public transportation system.

 

Government is SUPPOSED to subsidize public transportation because it is inherently unprofitable. Which is why government gets involved in it in the first place. The idea is they are supposed to keep it afloat.

 

Why? Because it is an ENABLER to the entire regional economy, and without it gridlock would ensue costing the city and state billions of dollars every year in lost tax revenue as more people avoid congestion, or sit idling in traffic wasting money on gas and decide not to spend other discretionary income, as goods are late to market or don't arrive at all so they cannot be sold, or as perishable goods...perish.

 

Government has FAILED to properly fund the MTA for it's basic operation, let alone systemwide expansion that has been needed for over 50 years. Politicians have been agitating for a lot of the crap that you've seen getting built recently. They love the Fulton Street Transit Center, even though it's idiotic and adds nothing to service or capacity. But it lets the MTA bring in rent revenue for building another giant EFFING MALL (just what this country needs) downtown, so they can point and go "look how much money they're making...why are they always broke?" as they divert more funding away from public transportation.

 

Remember you still have dedicated MTA payroll taxes that are being dedicated to...not the MTA...once they are being collected.

 

The accountability model has serious flaws. Sometimes there isn't a person to blame. Sometimes the wrong person gets blamed. You want accountability? Start holding elected officials to it. Mass class action lawsuits against them based on failed campaign promises that were never seriously attempted. STOP LETTING THESE RICH a**holeS LIE AND BRIBE YOU FOR YOUR VOTE THEN TURN AROUND AND SCREW YOU TO HELP THEIR CORPORATE DONORS.

Actually the has not been proactive or shall I say aggressive enough with regards to attracting tenants to empty spaces that they have, and that has caused a problem.

[bobtehpanda]

Actually I won't stop blaming the because the idea that we just need to keep funding the and not demand accountability is ridiculous.  Now I understand that they need more money and agree that they should be better funded, but I'm sorry, I have a problem with one station costing one billion dollars, and please spare me with the crappola about most of it came from federal funding.  Doesn't matter.  That is still taxpayer money and it should be used responsibly and not wasted on "lavish" non-essentials.  Even if we were funding the more, that wouldn't solve all of the problems because you still have out of control employee costs that the has to contend with that are increasing at a rate far higher than inflation, which does impact other areas of their operation overall. 

 

Well then you should take that to the bidders. The MTA pays billion-dollar station construction costs, because that is what everyone is offering. If there was an engineering firm or a consultant that would spell out much cheaper costs, the MTA would probably take it, but as of today there are no such companies lining up to do so. And the solution can't really be fixed by the MTA withholding money until somebody has a cheaper offer, because the MTA is bound by state auctioning rules and is in no position to do so.

 

The MTA has specified an interest into just outsourcing everything (design and build) to an outside contractor since they can't seem to get a grip on things when doing the two separately, but we'll see whether or not this actually changes things.

[SubwayGuy]

Actually the has not been proactive or shall I say aggressive enough with regards to attracting tenants to empty spaces that they have, and that has caused a problem.

 

Because there isn't a demand for it. Retail is a low margin, high volume business, where profitability is not easy. Large businesses with nationwide brand recognition aren't going to pay a premium for the "prestige" of being in a prime real estate. Businesses that want that name recognition can't afford it. Even so, rent money is still a drop in the bucket compared to the budgetary shortfall faced by the MTA. It's just another scapegoat that can be used by politicians when they bash the MTA as they raid its funding.

 

Government tax dollars are supposed to subsidize the MTA and key programs that are vital to the region's future. You can't charge the riders for everything. Again, as said earlier, transportation is an enabler for the regional economy that gives it the grease it needs to work freely and properly. Without it, everything stops. People can't get to work, or goods. BUT, since it is an enabler, it is incumbent upon those who benefit from it (namely taxpayers of the area, which includes businesses) to be collectively paying for its upkeep and long term planning. Hence why tax dollars are used. But the problem is more of this money is being diverted AWAY from transportation, even as inflation grows, to serve black holes like healthcare (which needs real reform, which Obamacare isn't), public programs (NYC 311 or CityTime timekeeping), and education (where money is thrown at problems generally, with no accountability or real plan of action to follow). That is the fault of politicians, not the fault of a few paltry million dollars here and there in rent that the MTA isn't able to eek out.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Because there isn't a demand for it. Retail is a low margin, high volume business, where profitability is not easy. Large businesses with nationwide brand recognition aren't going to pay a premium for the "prestige" of being in a prime real estate. Businesses that want that name recognition can't afford it. Even so, rent money is still a drop in the bucket compared to the budgetary shortfall faced by the MTA. It's just another scapegoat that can be used by politicians when they bash the MTA as they raid its funding.

 

Government tax dollars are supposed to subsidize the MTA and key programs that are vital to the region's future. You can't charge the riders for everything. Again, as said earlier, transportation is an enabler for the regional economy that gives it the grease it needs to work freely and properly. Without it, everything stops. People can't get to work, or goods. BUT, since it is an enabler, it is incumbent upon those who benefit from it (namely taxpayers of the area, which includes businesses) to be collectively paying for its upkeep and long term planning. Hence why tax dollars are used. But the problem is more of this money is being diverted AWAY from transportation, even as inflation grows, to serve black holes like healthcare (which needs real reform, which Obamacare isn't), public programs (NYC 311 or CityTime timekeeping), and education (where money is thrown at problems generally, with no accountability or real plan of action to follow). That is the fault of politicians, not the fault of a few paltry million dollars here and there in rent that the MTA isn't able to eek out.

Of course there isn't demand.  You have to create demand by being proactive.  Real estate isn't any different than any other industry.  If you don't market a property no one will know about it, and no one will be interested.  If they're just going to sit on a property for months at a time, then there's no point of them having it.  Name me an industry where profitability is easy.  Please... Every industry that I can think of has tight profit margins and you have to be out there making the rounds.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well then you should take that to the bidders. The MTA pays billion-dollar station construction costs, because that is what everyone is offering. If there was an engineering firm or a consultant that would spell out much cheaper costs, the MTA would probably take it, but as of today there are no such companies lining up to do so. And the solution can't really be fixed by the MTA withholding money until somebody has a cheaper offer, because the MTA is bound by state auctioning rules and is in no position to do so.

 

The MTA has specified an interest into just outsourcing everything (design and build) to an outside contractor since they can't seem to get a grip on things when doing the two separately, but we'll see whether or not this actually changes things.

I disagree.  The spends money for all of these project managers yet they don't have the "expertise" to run construction projects.  Given the amount of construction projects that they'll be undertaking, I think they had better become experts in the field or they are going to looking at astronomical costs going forward.

[bobtehpanda]

I disagree.  The spends money for all of these project managers yet they don't have the "expertise" to run construction projects.  Given the amount of construction projects that they'll be undertaking, I think they had better become experts in the field or they are going to looking at astronomical costs going forward.

 

The problem is that the MTA does not (and is currently not) in a position to have people on staff who are more qualified than they currently are. Due to the constant budget freeze placed on management for the past several years, the MTA cannot hire people at prevailing market rates, and it becomes very appealing for existing management to jump ship. (A very extreme example would be former chairman Jay Walder, who tripled his salary overnight just by switching to a different transport company.) Why stick with a slowly sinking ship when you can be better off on one that's doing just fine?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem is that the MTA does not (and is currently not) in a position to have people on staff who are more qualified than they currently are. Due to the constant budget freeze placed on management for the past several years, the MTA cannot hire people at prevailing market rates, and it becomes very appealing for existing management to jump ship. (A very extreme example would be former chairman Jay Walder, who tripled his salary overnight just by switching to a different transport company.) Why stick with a slowly sinking ship when you can be better off on one that's doing just fine?

Well there are a lot of pluses to working for the . I wouldn't expect a bigwig like Walder to stick around, but all of those project managers making $90,000 and above should want to stick around... Great benefits and you're working with the biggest transportation agency around.

[SubwayGuy]

Of course there isn't demand.  You have to create demand by being proactive.  Real estate isn't any different than any other industry.  If you don't market a property no one will know about it, and no one will be interested.  If they're just going to sit on a property for months at a time, then there's no point of them having it.  Name me an industry where profitability is easy.  Please... Every industry that I can think of has tight profit margins and you have to be out there making the rounds.

 

That's the problem though. You can't create demand in an economy where the bottom 2/3 of people haven't really felt much of a recovery. It's why all these craptastic "luxury apartments" being built all over the city have a much higher vacancy rate than the normal housing that still exists.

 

A retailer who is spending double the rent to have a store in a new "megamall" than they would being somewhere equally visible but less prestigious, is not going to be able to make money.

 

Look at what has happened to the old "Manhattan Mall" on 33rd Street. It went from 7 stories plus two basement levels to now barely two floors and basements. The rest has been converted to office space.

 

There are plenty of businesses that are high margin, low volume. For one, office space is a high margin business where you don't need the volume, you just need good clients who aren't going to move for a number of years. It's easy to draw them into mega projects since these businesses are generally in financial services, and part of their marketing strategy to their clientele is how flush with cash they appear to be (contrary to what a customer might want, but yet this is what sells). Numerous office towers have been profitable for decades in this fashion. But is that really a line of business you want the MTA getting into?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the problem though. You can't create demand in an economy where the bottom 2/3 of people haven't really felt much of a recovery. It's why all these craptastic "luxury apartments" being built all over the city have a much higher vacancy rate than the normal housing that still exists.

 

A retailer who is spending double the rent to have a store in a new "megamall" than they would being somewhere equally visible but less prestigious, is not going to be able to make money.

 

Look at what has happened to the old "Manhattan Mall" on 33rd Street. It went from 7 stories plus two basement levels to now barely two floors and basements. The rest has been converted to office space.

 

There are plenty of businesses that are high margin, low volume. For one, office space is a high margin business where you don't need the volume, you just need good clients who aren't going to move for a number of years. It's easy to draw them into mega projects since these businesses are generally in financial services, and part of their marketing strategy to their clientele is how flush with cash they appear to be (contrary to what a customer might want, but yet this is what sells). Numerous office towers have been profitable for decades in this fashion. But is that really a line of business you want the MTA getting into?

Well what's the point of sitting on property and not making anything off of it?  What you're mentioning has been going on for years now here, and will continue so long as we have strong demand for space and limited inventory, which is creating record prices in terms of the costs per square foot.  The big giants will be the main tenants that can afford the high rents, pushing out the mom and pop operations, as they have more financial resources.  Where my office is located that's precisely what is happening, even with the sluggish economy.  Park, Madison, 5th... Seeing record prices... Lots of empty store fronts as well.  The management companies that work their contacts and are proactive about finding long term tenants are doing just fine.  We receive TONS of calls about office space all of the time, even though we recently moved to a new renovated location.  To be honest, I've often thought about how those locations can remain profitable that the has.  They seem to be set up in a way that limits their reach to only touch mom and pop operations. I would argue that they need to change their approach in terms of who they market these spaces to if they expect to do anything with them from the perspective of them being financially viable as opposed to money pits.

[bobtehpanda]

Well what's the point of sitting on property and not making anything off of it?  What you're mentioning has been going on for years now here, and will continue so long as we have strong demand for space and limited inventory, which is creating record prices in terms of the costs per square foot.  The big giants will be the main tenants that can afford the high rents, pushing out the mom and pop operations, as they have more financial resources.  Where my office is located that's precisely what is happening, even with the sluggish economy.  Park, Madison, 5th... Seeing record prices... Lots of empty store fronts as well.  The management companies that work their contacts and are proactive about finding long term tenants are doing just fine.  We receive TONS of calls about office space all of the time, even though we recently moved to a new renovated location.  To be honest, I've often thought about how those locations can remain profitable that the has.  They seem to be set up in a way that limits their reach to only touch mom and pop operations. I would argue that they need to change their approach in terms of who they market these spaces to if they expect to do anything with them from the perspective of them being financially viable as opposed to money pits.

 

The MTA's record in terms of the property it has, and how much developers or renters want it, is not so great. Fulton Center might be positive, and Grand Central is very positive, and they sold their Jay St building to NYU, but for the most part the property is not in particularly desirable or developable locations. Atlantic Yards was undersold and is still kind of shaky, Hudson Yards only made sense after the City shoved $2B building a subway extension and offered hundreds of millions in tax breaks, and the office market currently has no shortage of new construction due to Hudson Yards and World Trade Center.

 

To look at what happens when a transportation agency gets into office development, look at the Port Authority. Several of the last toll hikes and fares were primarily to raise money to obtain loans to build World Trade Center, and even then not all of the towers can be built due to weak demand.

[SubwayGuy]

You're all missing the point. Even if the MTA is able to make a killing off these deals, it's a drop in the bucket.

 

Government throws money at something small (like New South Ferry) and walks away. Everything has recurring maintenance costs, these are never funded. The whole "capital budget / operating budget" split doesn't work because you have to increase both to fund an expansion, since you need annual amounts dedicated to its maintenance once it's complete. The MTA doesn't get this.

 

Government doesn't get that it is incumbent on itself to fund the MTA's longer term expansion since that's their role. The MTA is not allowed to sit on piles of cash to set aside for future expansion (if it was sitting on money, Albany would "borrow" it, or the calls would start to lower the fare, etc.), so they will always be in a state of near-broke. This is why it was set up this way by politicians. They learned from all the b****ching in the 1940s, up until the fare finally went up that the city and government could not take heat when issues arose. So the MTA was created as a giant political scapegoat so that elected officials did not have to answer for their failures in public transit.

 

Exactly the same as Amtrak. And probably in another hundred years, the airlines.

 

A few million dollars in real estate rents wouldn't change any of this.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You're all missing the point. Even if the MTA is able to make a killing off these deals, it's a drop in the bucket.

 

Government throws money at something small (like New South Ferry) and walks away. Everything has recurring maintenance costs, these are never funded. The whole "capital budget / operating budget" split doesn't work because you have to increase both to fund an expansion, since you need annual amounts dedicated to its maintenance once it's complete. The MTA doesn't get this.

 

Government doesn't get that it is incumbent on itself to fund the MTA's longer term expansion since that's their role. The MTA is not allowed to sit on piles of cash to set aside for future expansion (if it was sitting on money, Albany would "borrow" it, or the calls would start to lower the fare, etc.), so they will always be in a state of near-broke. This is why it was set up this way by politicians. They learned from all the b****ching in the 1940s, up until the fare finally went up that the city and government could not take heat when issues arose. So the MTA was created as a giant political scapegoat so that elected officials did not have to answer for their failures in public transit.

 

Exactly the same as Amtrak. And probably in another hundred years, the airlines.

 

A few million dollars in real estate rents wouldn't change any of this.

That's the whole problem... An agency that isn't aggressive with budgeting and obtaining more funds under things that it can control ends up having a fiscal hole of billions... After all what's a million here and a few million over there...

[CenSin]

That's the whole problem... An agency that isn't aggressive with budgeting and obtaining more funds under things that it can control ends up having a fiscal hole of billions... After all what's a million here and a few million over there...

Not aggressive? The MTA has trimmed enough fat to go from a size 6 to a size 2. You give the MTA too little credit.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not aggressive? The MTA has trimmed enough fat to go from a size 6 to a size 2. You give the MTA too little credit.

They've been aggressive in some areas... Too aggressive in cutting service...

[SubwayGuy]

That's the whole problem... An agency that isn't aggressive with budgeting and obtaining more funds under things that it can control ends up having a fiscal hole of billions... After all what's a million here and a few million over there...

 

They have been. The Jay Walder cuts mandated a 20% cut in the budgets of just about every department, largely administrative personnel. This was accomplished through a combination of layoffs and attrition. And what did that do? Nothing.

 

You can't cut operating personnel without impacting service. Yet that's what's done through attrition all the time (and even, under Walder, layoffs of station agents) - jobs that have never been replaced. Now they're removing jobs for towermen, Assistant Train Dispatchers, and in a few cases, even dispatchers...left and right.

 

Under Walder, conductors and train operators weren't hired for 6 months. But you know what happened? The trains still have to run. The calls come out to existing employees to work overtime. And they pay 50% more in hourly rates to people to fill the work that needs to get done. But they don't have to pay more benefits out! Then some bean counter figures out that the overtime is actually costing the MTA more than hiring a new person and paying benefits. So a bunch of new people get hired. Overtime dries up. And then the bean counter decides that the benefits are too high, so another austere period follows, and calls go out for overtime again. And so it goes. You can't cut in operating areas because the trains and buses have to run. The only way to cut is to eliminate bureacracy, or to cut service AND operating personnel at the same time.

 

How is the MTA going to be aggressive with "obtaining more funds" - the only thing they can do is raise fares, which have been done steadily as much as politically tenable, or lobby for more funding from the state (which they've done to no avail as Cuomo has done the usual "appeal to the upstate crowd" measures that include continuing to plug Albany's budget shortfall with MTA Payroll tax that the MTA never collects). Should the MTA do what the crooks on Wall Street do and start an investment firm business ("MTA investing your way..." haha), and gamble other people's fares in the stock market to try and make trading profits too? Perhaps they should sell groceries also...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

They have been. The Jay Walder cuts mandated a 20% cut in the budgets of just about every department, largely administrative personnel. This was accomplished through a combination of layoffs and attrition. And what did that do? Nothing.

 

You can't cut operating personnel without impacting service. Yet that's what's done through attrition all the time (and even, under Walder, layoffs of station agents) - jobs that have never been replaced. Now they're removing jobs for towermen, Assistant Train Dispatchers, and in a few cases, even dispatchers...left and right.

 

Under Walder, conductors and train operators weren't hired for 6 months. But you know what happened? The trains still have to run. The calls come out to existing employees to work overtime. And they pay 50% more in hourly rates to people to fill the work that needs to get done. But they don't have to pay more benefits out! Then some bean counter figures out that the overtime is actually costing the MTA more than hiring a new person and paying benefits. So a bunch of new people get hired. Overtime dries up. And then the bean counter decides that the benefits are too high, so another austere period follows, and calls go out for overtime again. And so it goes. You can't cut in operating areas because the trains and buses have to run. The only way to cut is to eliminate bureacracy, or to cut service AND operating personnel at the same time.

 

How is the MTA going to be aggressive with "obtaining more funds" - the only thing they can do is raise fares, which have been done steadily as much as politically tenable, or lobby for more funding from the state (which they've done to no avail as Cuomo has done the usual "appeal to the upstate crowd" measures that include continuing to plug Albany's budget shortfall with MTA Payroll tax that the MTA never collects). Should the MTA do what the crooks on Wall Street do and start an investment firm business ("MTA investing your way..." haha), and gamble other people's fares in the stock market to try and make trading profits too? Perhaps they should sell groceries also...

They can start by enforcing the fare... I see too many damn people riding for free, even on the express buses... Oh you don't have the fare? It's okay.. Just throw in a few coins and have a seat... What irks me more is that they keep jacking up the passes while keeping the base fare the same when most New Yorkers use passes.  Have the tourists pay the higher base fare.  It's mainly Europeans using pay-per-rides anyway and they make out like bandits when they come here since the dollar is still sh*tty these days against the Euro and the Pound, amongst other European currencies.

[SubwayGuy]

They can start by enforcing the fare... I see too many damn people riding for free, even on the express buses... Oh you don't have the fare? It's okay.. Just throw in a few coins and have a seat... What irks me more is that they keep jacking up the passes while keeping the base fare the same when most New Yorkers use passes.  Have the tourists pay the higher base fare.  It's mainly Europeans using pay-per-rides anyway and they make out like bandits when they come here since the dollar is still sh*tty these days against the Euro and the Pound, amongst other European currencies.

 

The problem is that transit employees cannot "enforce the fare". Several have attempted to do so and lost their lives in the line of duty. They are not allowed to defend themselves in as much as it saves their life. But the second they injure their attacker, all the lawyers line up trying to get some scumbag felon paid and cause the driver to lose his job (like the guy in Cleveland, to use another city as an example, who was completely justified in uppercutting some dumb broad to get her off his bus after she spat at him and attempted to attack him as the bus was moving.

 

This requires a dedicated paid security force, which would offset the revenue gained, or the police.

 

Police have been doing this in greater numbers in recent years, and now you're seeing all the b****ing that results as people complain about getting ticketed for so called "low level" violations. A low level violation is still a violation. And it's accused of being "racist" when it leads to an arrest because someone is either not carrying ID, or has warrants outstanding.

 

This city is so mindf***ed sometimes it's unbelievable.

 

It is clear that nationwide there are a lot of people who need to be rooted out of their comfort zone where they have been festering for years profitting off the middle class and scamming for a living. That goes on both ends of the economic spectrum.