Jump to content

Trump is set to remove almost ALL transit funding.


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts

If it holds up, Transit Agencies like the MBTA & CT Transit, which is facing terrible cuts now can not survive without the help of the FTA. Amtrak of all railroads need to come up with their own fundings, but even the state run money wont help either. Even if Transit gets cut, the (MTA):njt::septa: will still have their support since passengers do make up the difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If it holds up, Transit Agencies like the MBTA & CT Transit, which is facing terrible cuts now can not survive without the help of the FTA. Amtrak of all railroads need to come up with their own fundings, but even the state run money wont help either. Even if Transit gets cut, the (MTA):njt::septa: will still have their support since passengers do make up the difference

And that right there will end up hurting ridership. Commuters will support them through fare hikes. And as a commuter student, I'm not gonna be grinning ear-to-ear when my Metrocard/NJT fares go up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DaTransitMan: Cuomo's a corrupt, crony-capitalist neoliberal.  He has more in common with Republicans like Pataki and Giuliani than with Democrats like Lyndon Johnson or FDR.

 

God help us if the DNC hands him the nomination in 2020.

 

We need to get rid of all the sleazy hacks and liars from government: McConnell, Schumer, Ryan, Pelosi, Christie, Cuomo, Paul LePage, Warren Wilhelm, Rahm Emanuel, Scott Walker... the list goes on.

Vote them all OUT.  

Leave Schumer out of this. Who we dont need is Carson. Christie is serving his last year. Sessions, Guliani and these other guys. Now if it wasn't for Cuomo, you wouldn't have a 2nd Ave line, wifi on MTA buses and stations. You would need infrastracture for these things aka moving parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@R10/SubwayGuy: I retract my statement on Cuomo then. How do you feel about Schumer? You think he'd actually work for the common man? Or is he all talk?

 

@Subway Guy: True, but for argument's sake, let's say he had been elected with a majority (D) Congress. As for midterm 2018 elections, I think the Dems could have a chance to retake all three houses if folks actually get out and vote for midterms and the Dems have a progressive spine this time around.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Schumer is a lapdog of Wall Street. He craps on the working class. What we really need is another Hugh Carey, or someone like Jerry Brown, Zephyr Teachout, Tony Avella, and so on.

Even Jimmy Carter, for all his incompetence, was at least a compassionate human being.  I can't say the same for many of his successors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting so sick of hearing this argument.

 

Not voting for a candidate is not helping the other candidate win. What part of "the outcome of Hillary winning is just as undesirable as the outcome of Trump winning" do you people not understand?

 

I have no trouble understanding that statement--I just think it's fundamentally wrong. 

 

Hillary winning would not, by any reasonable measure, have been "just as undesirable as the outcome of Trump winning." I'm willing to argue about that until the end of time. It's a misinformed, reductionist statement to equate the highly flawed Clinton with a man threatening to the notions of democracy and human society themselves.

 

I say this as somebody who voted for Sanders and who sent his money to Sanders, and who supported him from the start of his campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@R10/SubwayGuy: I retract my statement on Cuomo then. How do you feel about Schumer? You think he'd actually work for the common man? Or is he all talk?

 

@Subway Guy: True, but for argument's sake, let's say he had been elected with a majority (D) Congress. As for midterm 2018 elections, I think the Dems could have a chance to retake all three houses if folks actually get out and vote for midterms and the Dems have a progressive spine this time around.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

Schumer is also all talk. He pays lip service to working people but nothing more.

 

Whether democrats take back Congress or not isn't really my concern. More partisan bickering isn't going to help. There are plenty of problematic democrats out there that don't support working people too. Economics is the main issue facing this country, and yet, they will bring up just about any subject to avoid addressing it, and label you with a stupid name if you don't drop everything (including the #1 issue to most voters in this country) and agree with them about whatever crusade they are taking up. And after you agree with them, if that's your prerogative, they have no solutions for it...only complaints, and "someone should really do something about that!" Sound like Republicans with healthcare? Seriously, doesn't matter what the issue is, so long as it is generally discussed in the least specific terms possible:

 

-fracking

-nuclear power

-climate change

-equal pay for women

-what bathroom people pee in

-police brutality

-racial profiling

-racism

-trigger warnings and safe spaces

-amnesty for illegal immigrants

 

We won't be any closer to fixing America with idiots from the Nancy Pelosi school of government as we'll be with jerkoffs like Paul Ryan calling the shots.

 

When people can see past party lines to pick people that will side with the opposition party if it's in America's best interests, and elect them en masse, then we might actually get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave Schumer out of this. Who we dont need is Carson. Christie is serving his last year. Sessions, Guliani and these other guys. Now if it wasn't for Cuomo, you wouldn't have a 2nd Ave line, wifi on MTA buses and stations. You would need infrastracture for these things aka moving parts.

 

You're joking right?

 

Andrew Cuomo did absolutely nothing to see 2nd Avenue to completion. That was done by Tom Prendergast. As for who had the vision to finally get construction greenlit, Mario Cuomo authorized the original study in the 1990s for SAS (yes, 22+ years from idea to completion for 3 stations!), but the money was promptly pulled due to a budget crisis. The MTA launched a study a few years later, and even still, construction did not begin for another 10 years after that.

 

Again, Andrew Cuomo did ABSOLUTELY nothing to see 2nd Avenue to completion. He just happened to be in office when it was finished.

 

Wifi is a waste of time, and a threat to security. It's basically a way of attempting to placate the masses. "Oh, who cares, my underfunded transit system that is overcrowded past capacity due to poor planning, means I will have to let 3 trains go by before I can finally squeeze on one. Well, at least I can play Candy Crush."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no trouble understanding that statement--I just think it's fundamentally wrong. 

 

Hillary winning would not, by any reasonable measure, have been "just as undesirable as the outcome of Trump winning." I'm willing to argue about that until the end of time. It's a misinformed, reductionist statement to equate the highly flawed Clinton with a man threatening to the notions of democracy and human society themselves.

 

I say this as somebody who voted for Sanders and who sent his money to Sanders, and who supported him from the start of his campaign. 

 

If you think that, you truly don't understand the hole the American political system is already in. People like Clinton epitomize the "threat to the notions of democracy and human society" you talk about. What is democratic about hijacking party insiders to steal a nomination? What is democratic about a person mired in controversy who refuses to even address legitimate concerns about her past actions? What is democratic about someone who, at the very least, did not exercise due caution with national secrets? What is democratic about a person who, while campaigning, pays lip service to questions about her priorities, then makes backhanded "under the breath" comments to her handlers like "back to the real issues" seconds later? How is it democratic that the will of the people is constantly thwarted in favor of special interests, and people act like Hillary Clinton would have changed any of that? She wouldn't.

 

Her and Donald Trump are no different. They are both in it for themselves. Her for her "Clinton Global Initiative" and him for his various businesses. The only difference is he has shock jock value since he doesn't think before he talks, so his self-interest and threat to democracy is a little easier to see on paper. But make no mistake, they are the same. That's why her and Bill have gone on golf outings with Trump, that's why they're good friends, that's why he's not making good on his campaign promise to indict her. It's all a dog and pony show to make you think you have a choice.

 

That's why Bernie was such a real threat because no one would have counted on an old Jewish man from a mostly white state rallying blacks, Latinos, and young people behind the cause of working people...and had he won the nomination, he likely would have won the presidency, which would have put a major wrench in the plutocrats' plans to undo what little progress had been made during the 8 years that followed Hillary's last pathetic attempt at the position she seems to feel "entitled" to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at the WMATA's proposed operating budget of 2017. Yes they are going to cut some routes down the road but some will be transferred to other agencies that operate the same side as Metrobus routes.

 

As for Trump: cutting the transit funding is NOT MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, he's making it worse for areas that DO rely on transit.

 

The megalopolis of Transit agencies from Boston to D.C.:

Boston-Providence: MBTA: look for trimming of off peak & weekend service routes or complete elimination of low ridership routes or merging of routes said.

Providence: RIPTA: service trim & Sunday service ends earlier

Connecticut: Proposed NH-HFD commuter line delayed until 2018/19. Buses drastically cut along with CT FASTTRACK, hurt cities will be New Canaan, Waterbury and Danbury. Stamford & New Haven little to medium cuts and Hartford? I haven't see service but according to their governor, low ridership buses will be the first to go.

Metro-North: reduced service on D & W. New Canaan will have no weekend service

Westchester: Say good bye to the 14, 15, 16, 33, 41 & 54.

NYCTA/MTABC: Fares go to $5/$10.75 & cut route hours. Busiest will not feel the impact.

NJT: Say good by to the high 700s, & wheels.

SEPTA: Bus routes reduced, shuttles operate peak hours only, Regional Rails end early

DART-First State: Drastic cuts and eliminations

MTA-MARYLAND: Same as SEPTA. 104 discontinued

 

Now we don't want this to happen so I suggest that come November 2017, 2018 & 2019 we vote for New Democrats that support Transit funding.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no trouble understanding that statement--I just think it's fundamentally wrong. 

 

Hillary winning would not, by any reasonable measure, have been "just as undesirable as the outcome of Trump winning." I'm willing to argue about that until the end of time. It's a misinformed, reductionist statement to equate the highly flawed Clinton with a man threatening to the notions of democracy and human society themselves.

 

I say this as somebody who voted for Sanders and who sent his money to Sanders, and who supported him from the start of his campaign. 

 

I fully agree with that statement! My family supported Sanders, and my two parents voted for him. We dislike Hillary Clinton, and my parents, in the 2008 Primary, voted for Obama. However, she is not even close to being as disasterous as Trump. Clinton knows what she is doing; she has experience, she has prepared for the job, and she is intelligent. While she is too close to Wall Street, she actually cares, and she would try to do what is best for all Americans. She wouldn't stand for tax cuts for the wealthy. She would push for equality for women, and she would fight for immigrants. Trump is mysoginistic and is a narcissist and racist who doesn't know anything about how Washington works, has no experience, has had shady business dealings, and has made the alt-right mainstream. To equate the two is just WRONG! When Hillary was speaking at the DNC, I once again remembered what great things that the Democratic Party could do for America. Voting for Jill Stein, who has no political experience, who is against vaccinations, and who does not know what she is talking about, or voting for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump! People who vote for Stein obviously would have voted for the Democrat.

 

Look at Florida–4,617,886 for Trump and 4,504,975 for Clinton. There were 64,399 for Stein. Add that to Hillary's tally. 207,043 for Gary Johnson. Let's take 40% of those, or about 51,760. Add half of the write-ins of 81,632 to that and you get 4,661,950. She would have won Florida and if 12,000 of Stein's votes went to Clinton in Michigan, she could have won the election and averted the disaster that we have.

 

To say that Hillary did not have a message for the people in the Rust Belt is wrong. She had better ideas than Trump. However, the Democrats took PA, MI, and WI for granted and didn't campaign hard enough. Now we will suffer for four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of this is that you are basing this opinion of yours on media coverage, which has never been known to be accurate.

 

Again, there are plenty of pissed off people about Bernie Sanders getting the runaround...so many, in fact, that they didn't show up to vote for Hillary. Bernie doesn't lose Michigan. Bernie doesn't lose Pennsylvania. Bernie doesn't lose Ohio, or Wisconsin. Hell, Bernie probably doesn't lose Florida either. Hillary couldn't even win her real home state (Arkansas).

 

...and the whole women's rights issue which is about abortions etc, is more in response to Congressional Republicans and things that Republican governors have pushed in southern states that limit the availability of abortions to women...not who the president is. In fact, it was planned well before this whole thing. But that's just the media's spin on it since Trump is a hot button issue and including his name in the title of a news article generates more clicks from both political "fanbases" than not.

The problem is, the GOP "Establishment" likely runs a third-party candidate on say the Conservative Party (which Reagan actually ran on in addition to the GOP when he won in 1980) if Bernie was the Democratic Nominee, focusing heavily on a few states that were tight and taking away enough Electoral Votes from Bernie and Trump so no one got to 270, then winning the Presidency in a simple vote of states (one vote per state) in the House (the Senate does the same thing for VP in that scenario).   That to me was the real fear of the Dems that someone like Pence could actually have run against Trump and Sanders on a third-party ticket and picked off just enough states to assure the GOP won the election in a House vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Hillary did not have a message for the people in the Rust Belt is wrong. She had better ideas than Trump. However, the Democrats took PA, MI, and WI for granted and didn't campaign hard enough. Now we will suffer for four years.

Michigan and Wisconsin I agree with.  Pennsylvania to me was caused by the SEPTA strike that ended the day before the Election.  There were some as I understand it who voted for Trump to get back at SEPTA workers for going out on strike and leaving them with for some insanely long commutes (even if they don't use SEPTA because of traffic issues) and in some cases having to work insane hours on top of that due to other workers unable to come into work due to the strike..  Others in that group didn't vote at all because they were either so exhausted and/or sick OR had to move around appointments and/or other things as a result of having to in some cases work excessive hours during the SEPTA strike to where they were too physically drained or had no time to vote.  Hillary got 30,000 fewer votes than Obama did in Philadelphia in 2012 and a lot of that could have been directly related to the SEPTA strike, if so that strike costing Hillary PA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you just don't get it: buying into the 2-party narrative lie is just cynical.  Have they really pulled the wool over your eyes that you can't even acknowledge Hillary Clinton's basic flaws? Or are you simply butt-hurting about the fact that she lost?  If she was so great, why did she lose to a demented blowhard who talked about groping women and the size of his package on national television? Not everyone in Middle America is a quasi-retarded, incestuous hillbilly.
Sure, some Midwest, Rust Belt blue-collar voters got manipulated into voting for a professional con man.  But maybe they had nothing to lose.  Maybe not enough people made a big enough fuss about the DNC collaborating with Clinton.  What Donna Brazile did when she gave Hillary the questions to the debates in advance would be enough to get you fired from moderating a high-school debate team, yet apparently politics has even lower standards.  If enough people had gotten together and called the DNC out on their tactics, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
 
The elite have this country in a stranglehold, and it doesn't take an academic to see it:

 

They live; and we sleep...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you just don't get it: buying into the 2-party narrative lie is just cynical.  Have they really pulled the wool over your eyes that you can't even acknowledge Hillary Clinton's basic flaws? Or are you simply butt-hurting about the fact that she lost?  If she was so great, why did she lose to a demented blowhard who talked about groping women and the size of his package on national television? Not everyone in Middle America is a quasi-retarded, incestuous hillbilly.

Sure, some Midwest, Rust Belt blue-collar voters got manipulated into voting for a professional con man.  But maybe they had nothing to lose.  Maybe not enough people made a big enough fuss about the DNC collaborating with Clinton.  What Donna Brazile did when she gave Hillary the questions to the debates in advance would be enough to get you fired from moderating a high-school debate team, yet apparently politics has even lower standards.  If enough people had gotten together and called the DNC out on their tactics, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

 

The elite have this country in a stranglehold, and it doesn't take an academic to see it:

 

They live; and we sleep...

See what needs to happen is the Berniecrats need to do a full-scale invasion of the Democratic party. If they were able to take CA's Democratic legislature, then the whole DNC needs to be their next target. I'm sure there's a ton of Berniecrats out there that reside in other parts of the country, no doubt that they live here in the Northeast Corridor region. They need to act now, because the GOP isn't gonna give two flying ducks when the middle class gets screwed over. 

 

Michigan and Wisconsin I agree with.  Pennsylvania to me was caused by the SEPTA strike that ended the day before the Election.  There were some as I understand it who voted for Trump to get back at SEPTA workers for going out on strike and leaving them with for some insanely long commutes (even if they don't use SEPTA because of traffic issues) and in some cases having to work insane hours on top of that due to other workers unable to come into work due to the strike..  Others in that group didn't vote at all because they were either so exhausted and/or sick OR had to move around appointments and/or other things as a result of having to in some cases work excessive hours during the SEPTA strike to where they were too physically drained or had no time to vote.  Hillary got 30,000 fewer votes than Obama did in Philadelphia in 2012 and a lot of that could have been directly related to the SEPTA strike, if so that strike costing Hillary PA.  

While that sounds like a plausible enough reason as to why PA voted Republican this election, remember the Philly region isn't all of PA. You still have the towns out there along Amtrak's Keystone Corridor that were hit hard by the recession and haven't really recovered. While those areas may not be as dense as Philadelphia, those votes still count just as much as the votes from the Philly region. That's one reason Hillary lost PA, she didn't venture outside of the major city centers. She thought visiting a state's main city center = the whole state is gonna hear her. That strategy gave voters rust belt voters the impression that she was in fact, an elite, coastal-centric pseudo-liberal. Bernie wouldn't have done that. Hell when Bernie came to New York, he went to the South Bronx, NYU (well Washington Square Park), and Brooklyn. If my memory is correct, I don't even think Hillary left Manhattan. 

 

Another thing that did Hillary in was her scandals. Now don't get me wrong, some of these scandals were purely witch hunts by the GOP (the e-mails; I honestly think if she can't be careful with her email then she should just delegate that communication method to someone who will be), but nevertheless the DNC should've gotten behind Bernie, because the man had a record cleaner than many other Washington politicians. Bernie has always been known to walk the talk, as he's stayed consistent on his vision. I think Trump hijacked his message about the establishment and articulated it with nationalist rhetoric. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See what needs to happen is the Berniecrats need to do a full-scale invasion of the Democratic party. If they were able to take CA's Democratic legislature, then the whole DNC needs to be their next target. I'm sure there's a ton of Berniecrats out there that reside in other parts of the country, no doubt that they live here in the Northeast Corridor region. They need to act now, because the GOP isn't gonna give two flying ducks when the middle class gets screwed over. 

 

While that sounds like a plausible enough reason as to why PA voted Republican this election, remember the Philly region isn't all of PA. You still have the towns out there along Amtrak's Keystone Corridor that were hit hard by the recession and haven't really recovered. While those areas may not be as dense as Philadelphia, those votes still count just as much as the votes from the Philly region. That's one reason Hillary lost PA, she didn't venture outside of the major city centers. She thought visiting a state's main city center = the whole state is gonna hear her. That strategy gave voters rust belt voters the impression that she was in fact, an elite, coastal-centric pseudo-liberal. Bernie wouldn't have done that. Hell when Bernie came to New York, he went to the South Bronx, NYU (well Washington Square Park), and Brooklyn. If my memory is correct, I don't even think Hillary left Manhattan. 

 

Another thing that did Hillary in was her scandals. Now don't get me wrong, some of these scandals were purely witch hunts by the GOP (the e-mails; I honestly think if she can't be careful with her email then she should just delegate that communication method to someone who will be), but nevertheless the DNC should've gotten behind Bernie, because the man had a record cleaner than many other Washington politicians. Bernie has always been known to walk the talk, as he's stayed consistent on his vision. I think Trump hijacked his message about the establishment and articulated it with nationalist rhetoric. 

Philly isn't all of Pennsylvania and there are many rural area that indeed resent Philly and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh, but Philly and Southeastern PA is the main voter base for the Dems in PA and that's where the SEPTA strike was.  That strike PO'ed a lot of people who took it out on SEPTA workers by voting for Trump or in some cases had their schedules so badly altered as a result of the strike even though it ended a day before the election were unable to vote for a variety of reasons.  

 

As for Bernie, as said, to me the DNC's big fear was if Bernie won the nomination, the GOP would have used the Conservative Party as a defacto second GOP party this time around by putting an "Establishment" candidate there with the strategy of picking off enough states from Sanders and Trump to where no one got to 270 and the "Establishment" candidate then wins the Presidency in a House vote where its one vote per state, getting the 26 states needed to win the White House that way.   If so, the Dems overthought it and didn't realize what Trump was doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuomo?!?!?!! GOD NO.

 

As for Bernie, if he'd been elected, he'd be fighting with Congress. So unclear if he'd be getting things done, but he'd be trying to do the right things, and it could mean positive change during the midterm elections in getting some of the dead weight and snakes out of Congress.

Cuomo has been ok as governor, but I wouldn't want him as our president.  

Bernie did run though, and I voted for him in the primaries. And the reason for that is that his level of integrity, honesty, and concern for the people s**ts on Trump's. If Bernie had been elected President, we'd be working on solving our country's issues rather than talking about crowd sizes, SNL, and some stupid ass wall.

 

I'm mad as hell at the DNC and I'm gonna echo SubwayGuy's point that if they want to pull off a victory in 2020, they have to shake things up. And that means keeping Elizabeth Warren, getting rid of the Clintons (we've seen enough of them already) and getting rid of the neoliberal ideology that has engulfed the party. To be honest, if I wanted us to have a woman president, I think just about everyone would be fine with Warren. Hell I'd be fine with Cuomo as president, but that right there might be wishful thinking.

 

Listen VG8, for the sake of a packed Bx39 at rush hour with an LFS, please make sure that you fight Trump on his BS when you see it. Don't act like his rabid supporters who are fine with everything the man does, no matter how detrimental it might be to them. I know you're a lot smarter than to blindly follow someone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I don't agree with everything Trump says, but then again who does?  What I care about more than anything is that he addresses the issues that I care about the most which are tax reform, eliminating welfare for able bodied people, renegotiating NAFTA, addressing illegal immigration, and repealing and replacing ACA.  Those are my core issues.  The other things I'm less concerned about, though I'm not necessarily thrilled about his stance on climate change, but overall we're both fiscally conservative and protectionists and agree on those core issues.

 

Regarding transit I'm going to have a wait and see approach because quite frankly I believe we need to do more with less in terms of transportation.  I'm sick of seeing costs for the (MTA) go up with nothing in return aside from worse service, and subway stations costing $1 billion dollars with no justification for such costs, so I'm not going to say that I wouldn't agree with cuts to transit.  It depends on what specifically would be cut.  For all of the complaining about NICE, quite frankly, who in the hell lives in the suburbs to use local buses? I understand the LIRR, commuter rail service and express buses, but NICE buses?  Give me a break.  You don't move to the suburbs to use local buses, so I'm not necessarily up in arms about cuts to NICE service. Those monies could be used to improve LIRR service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding transit I'm going to have a wait and see approach because quite frankly I believe we need to do more with less in terms of transportation.  I'm sick of seeing costs for the (MTA) go up with nothing in return aside from worse service, and subway stations costing $1 billion dollars with no justification for such costs, so I'm not going to say that I wouldn't agree with cuts to transit.  It depends on what specifically would be cut.  For all of the complaining about NICE, quite frankly, who in the hell lives in the suburbs to use local buses? I understand the LIRR, commuter rail service and express buses, but NICE buses?  Give me a break.  You don't move to the suburbs to use local buses, so I'm not necessarily up in arms about cuts to NICE service. Those monies could be used to improve LIRR service.

 

In terms of building transit, this is true.

 

In terms of operating transit, the vast majority of the increases can be attributed to three things:

 

  • The 2010 service cuts were about the same amount of money that the State redirected from the MTA in 2010. State dedicated taxes instituted for the MTA are not actually legally required to be directed to the MTA.
  • The State and City have been paying ever lower shares of the Capital Plan, so the MTA takes out more debt, and the MTA as a result pays more interest.
  • The pension system is underfunded, even at its generous assumptions of returns.

 

Given that resolving these issues requires either the State or City to put up more money, or in the case of the third one would require a State Constitutional Convention to make modifying existing obligations legal, the general structural issues are not going to be fixed anytime soon. We've already used up all the one-offs like selling the real estate portfolio (when people want to buy it).

 

As far as bus service in the suburbs go, a third of ridership has disappeared since NICE took over, so presumably those people found transit useful at one point. Not everyone can drive, or can afford to live in a multi-car household. Nassau has business and commercial districts, as well as large educational institutions and hospitals, that people would reasonably commute to, and if anything reverse-peak into Long Island is impossible, so you basically have to live in Nassau to work or go to school in Nassau. And given that real estate is so expensive these days, people who may have moved here when transit was more feasible may not be able to move out to more accessible areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of building transit, this is true.

 

In terms of operating transit, the vast majority of the increases can be attributed to three things:

 

  • The 2010 service cuts were about the same amount of money that the State redirected from the MTA in 2010. State dedicated taxes instituted for the MTA are not actually legally required to be directed to the MTA.
  • The State and City have been paying ever lower shares of the Capital Plan, so the MTA takes out more debt, and the MTA as a result pays more interest.
  • The pension system is underfunded, even at its generous assumptions of returns.

 

Given that resolving these issues requires either the State or City to put up more money, or in the case of the third one would require a State Constitutional Convention to make modifying existing obligations legal, the general structural issues are not going to be fixed anytime soon. We've already used up all the one-offs like selling the real estate portfolio (when people want to buy it).

 

As far as bus service in the suburbs go, a third of ridership has disappeared since NICE took over, so presumably those people found transit useful at one point. Not everyone can drive, or can afford to live in a multi-car household. Nassau has business and commercial districts, as well as large educational institutions and hospitals, that people would reasonably commute to, and if anything reverse-peak into Long Island is impossible, so you basically have to live in Nassau to work or go to school in Nassau. And given that real estate is so expensive these days, people who may have moved here when transit was more feasible may not be able to move out to more accessible areas.

That's the thing though... The taxes on Nassau are out of control, so I don't see why people think that NICE wouldn't be cut.  If I were looking to cut spending in the suburbs, that's the first thing I would target.  You have to look at what people need the most, and that is the LIRR.  You sure as hell can't touch funding to the schools because that's what draws people to the suburbs in the first place.  While it may seem like cuts to NICE was a travesty, I'm willing to bet that outside of this transit forum, that's what the majority of voters wanted on Long Island, hence why they voted for Mangano and he acted accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that, you truly don't understand the hole the American political system is already in. People like Clinton epitomize the "threat to the notions of democracy and human society" you talk about. What is democratic about hijacking party insiders to steal a nomination? What is democratic about a person mired in controversy who refuses to even address legitimate concerns about her past actions? What is democratic about someone who, at the very least, did not exercise due caution with national secrets? What is democratic about a person who, while campaigning, pays lip service to questions about her priorities, then makes backhanded "under the breath" comments to her handlers like "back to the real issues" seconds later? How is it democratic that the will of the people is constantly thwarted in favor of special interests, and people act like Hillary Clinton would have changed any of that? She wouldn't.

 

Her and Donald Trump are no different. They are both in it for themselves. Her for her "Clinton Global Initiative" and him for his various businesses. The only difference is he has shock jock value since he doesn't think before he talks, so his self-interest and threat to democracy is a little easier to see on paper. But make no mistake, they are the same. That's why her and Bill have gone on golf outings with Trump, that's why they're good friends, that's why he's not making good on his campaign promise to indict her. It's all a dog and pony show to make you think you have a choice.

 

That's why Bernie was such a real threat because no one would have counted on an old Jewish man from a mostly white state rallying blacks, Latinos, and young people behind the cause of working people...and had he won the nomination, he likely would have won the presidency, which would have put a major wrench in the plutocrats' plans to undo what little progress had been made during the 8 years that followed Hillary's last pathetic attempt at the position she seems to feel "entitled" to.

 

You're a smart thinker, so I don't understand why you take the whole first paragraph, which I largely agree with the concerns of, and then make a statement as misinformed as to say she and Trump "are no different." How can you possibly think that? That just seems naive. Of course every politician is in it for themselves. I wasn't born yesterday either. [Not that her charity is a good example of that, no matter what you believe.]

 

You will never convince me that they are the same, and I think you are fundamentally mistaken on this. I share most of your cynicism of the political system and I have never, ever liked the Clintons--at all--but Trump is a different ballpark. He's not Romney, he's not Reagan, he's not McCain. He is a different kind of threat that has never existed before. If you can't see that, I don't really know what to say. From the first day of his presidency, in that ludicrous Orwellian press conference as the Ministry of Truth told us about the 1.5 million at the inauguration, he ushered in a fascist era of 'alternative facts' and all the nefarious things that can be done when a lie is on your side. Trump is everything bad about Clinton--the corporatism, the Goldman cronies, the Wall Street coziness, the lack of concern for the middle class--coupled with racism, xenophobia, hatred, authoritarianism, and complete irresponsibility when it comes to foreign policy. He is, in a word, worse. 

 

From Orwell's 'Why I Write' to make my point better (emphasis mine):

 

An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct,national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the caster oil? 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing though... The taxes on Nassau are out of control, so I don't see why people think that NICE wouldn't be cut.  If I were looking to cut spending in the suburbs, that's the first thing I would target.  You have to look at what people need the most, and that is the LIRR.  You sure as hell can't touch funding to the schools because that's what draws people to the suburbs in the first place.  While it may seem like cuts to NICE was a travesty, I'm willing to bet that outside of this transit forum, that's what the majority of voters wanted on Long Island, hence why they voted for Mangano and he acted accordingly.

 

The long-term problem with Nassau, and Suffolk too, is that it is so low-density that it could never generate enough money to cover its expenses; when it becomes time to replace all those highways, overpasses, sewers, electrical, etc. there will be hell to pay (and it's already happening in slow motion). They've been hiking property taxes to pay for these things, which leads to people leaving, which leads to them being hiked further to pay for it, which makes more people leave, and Nassau and Suffolk end up caught in a death spiral. Their population is already falling.

 

On top of all that the people who were raised in Long Island get the hell out as fast as possible, because the Island is, for all intents and purposes, a cultural wasteland with a hell of a commute. It takes forever to get anywhere, even if you're going somewhere relatively close, and if you want to do something other than go to a big-box store, or visit the local bars, you'd have to go into the City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're a smart thinker, so I don't understand why you take the whole first paragraph, which I largely agree with the concerns of, and then make a statement as misinformed as to say she and Trump "are no different." How can you possibly think that? That just seems naive. Of course every politician is in it for themselves. I wasn't born yesterday either. [Not that her charity is a good example of that, no matter what you believe.]

 

You will never convince me that they are the same, and I think you are fundamentally mistaken on this. I share most of your cynicism of the political system and I have never, ever liked the Clintons--at all--but Trump is a different ballpark. He's not Romney, he's not Reagan, he's not McCain. He is a different kind of threat that has never existed before. If you can't see that, I don't really know what to say. From the first day of his presidency, in that ludicrous Orwellian press conference as the Ministry of Truth told us about the 1.5 million at the inauguration, he ushered in a fascist era of 'alternative facts' and all the nefarious things that can be done when a lie is on your side. Trump is everything bad about Clinton--the corporatism, the Goldman cronies, the Wall Street coziness, the lack of concern for the middle class--coupled with racism, xenophobia, hatred, authoritarianism, and complete irresponsibility when it comes to foreign policy. He is, in a word, worse. 

 

From Orwell's 'Why I Write' to make my point better (emphasis mine):

 

An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is 'just the same as' or 'just as bad as' totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are powerful illusions. The belief in them influences conduct,national life is different because of them. In proof of which, look about you. Where are the rubber truncheons, where is the caster oil? 

 

So then you're saying that Clinton is just not as bad as Trump, not that's she a messiah.  That's the impression that you gave... That you blindly supported Clinton and that she could do no wrong because she's a "Democrat".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long-term problem with Nassau, and Suffolk too, is that it is so low-density that it could never generate enough money to cover its expenses; when it becomes time to replace all those highways, overpasses, sewers, electrical, etc. there will be hell to pay (and it's already happening in slow motion). They've been hiking property taxes to pay for these things, which leads to people leaving, which leads to them being hiked further to pay for it, which makes more people leave, and Nassau and Suffolk end up caught in a death spiral. Their population is already falling.

 

On top of all that the people who were raised in Long Island get the hell out as fast as possible, because the Island is, for all intents and purposes, a cultural wasteland with a hell of a commute. It takes forever to get anywhere, even if you're going somewhere relatively close, and if you want to do something other than go to a big-box store, or visit the local bars, you'd have to go into the City.

You're right about that.  If I were ever to leave the city entirely, I would choose Westchester over Long Island.  Metro-North is much more reliable and nicer (esp. the Hudson Line). I'm not a fan of the Harlem Line only because of the overcrowding.  I think the Hudson Line is the best out the three since the trains are less crowded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then you're saying that Clinton is just not as bad as Trump, not that's she a messiah.  That's the impression that you gave... That you blindly supported Clinton and that she could do no wrong because she's a "Democrat".

 

No, it's not. That was your confused, misinformed projection. I don't vote for racist, fascist, xenophobic, hate-mongering demagogues. That was your candidate. So I voted against him. Talking to you about this stuff is like talking to a brick wall. You reap what you sow, and I only hope you're not one of the millions who will be left uninsured and helpless in the coming days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. I learned about the fate of ACA today which is a severe issue for me. But now this? New York City is done for.

Well the individual mandate is likely bye-bye.  On principal alone it's a joke to have the government trying to dictate such a thing and to tax people on top of it is even more insane. Completely undemocratic!

 

Transit funding... Trump has said he wants to rebuild our infrastructure and make our railroads great again, so I would wait before jumping to any conclusion just yet.  He is not a true Republican:

 

 

 

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump is very right-wing. But on one issue, at least, he breaks the Republican mold: He supports more spending on mass transit.

 

 

In an interview with The Guardian on Tuesday, Trump said the U.S. should invest in its decaying, underfunded transportation infrastructure. The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs reports:

On domestic policy, the lifelong New Yorker disagreed with many of his Republican opponents on the importance of spending money on rail infrastructure.

“We have to spend money on mass transit,” Trump said. “We have to fix our airports, fix our roads also in addition to mass transit, but we have to spend a lot of money.”

“China and these other countries, they have super-speed trains. We have nothing. This country has nothing. We are like the third world, but we will get it going and we will do it properly and, as I say, make America great again.”

Source: http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-is-right-about-something-kinda/

 

This was when he was interviewed back in 2015, and he said something similar during his inauguration speech on Friday.

No, it's not. That was your confused, misinformed projection. I don't vote for racist, fascist, xenophobic, hate-mongering demagogues. That was your candidate. So I voted against him. Talking to you about this stuff is like talking to a brick wall. You reap what you sow, and I only hope you're not one of the millions who will be left uninsured and helpless in the coming days. 

Look who is talking... A liberal who blindly votes Democrat just because and attacks others who vote for third party candidates. lol.  I'm an Independent, and vote based on the candidate. You wish you could say the same.

 

Oh and while we're at it, you do vote for crooks, because Hillary is as crooked as they come.  :D  :lol:

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.