news MTA Chairman Announces Sweeping $836 Million Plan to Stabilize Subway System

[bobtehpanda]

 

This sheds some light on where the expects to get the money from, and they want the City to put up 50% of the funds:

 

...

 

But he added that unless Cuomo comes up with a reliably funded long-term plan for transit, "we’ll be right back in emergency mode next year."

 

This is really the money quote. While I agree with 50/50 splits for this, the MTA's long term financial outlook has always been very poor. There are three sources of MTA funding right now:

 

• Tolls on roads and bridges. This has an upper limit, since higher tolls always push people towards the free bridges, and Port Authority has basically reached the ceiling on how high you can raise that without pissing everyone off.
• Cyclical taxes. The MTA has dedicated tax funding, but most of these come from very cyclical sources, like real estate transactions and sales. If, say, the real estate bubble were to explode, the MTA would be walloped pretty hard.
• General funding from the state. This keeps getting cut in the name of fiscal responsibility, and really, ask NJT how much good general funding has done for it.

I would actually not mind if the MTA were to revert NYCT/MTAB back to City control, on two conditions:

• The City gains the power to toll any bridges into Manhattan, MTA controlled or otherwise
• The City gains the dedicated MTA tax revenue that is generated inside the five boroughs. At least 75%, with a little bit going towards the railroads or whatever.

[R32 3838]

That was already the plan to handle the closure. Still not enough for ten car trains.

 

Oh, and if the does get R32's, then there wouldn't be any left over for the . Currently 152 R32's enter service each rush hour and the current uses 200 R68/As.

The ENY R32's will have to go back to 207th by default. The inspection barn can't fit a full 10 car train. Thats one of the main reasons why the R32's were all at 207th post june 2010. The A/C can share equipment. If anything i would give CIY 10 sets of R46's for R160B's 9103-9222 for service and have the R46's on the . But i doubt CIY would want to give up R160's unless they give up more R160's to jamaica.

[N6 Limited]

Well apparently the thinks it does, which is why the article notes that they're adding cars to the .  It actually does get pretty crowded at times.  What I've been noticing is more and more people stay on the local to get to 125th and above, and now they're actually crowded, so that means the and are not performing as well as they should, or people find them too crowded or both.

I think part of it is because of the R160s, people don't mind staying on the train. Also, the doesn't run frequently enough to 'catch the express to catch up to the next local'.  If you see a at 59th street, odds are that's the same train you'll be waiting for at 125th or 145th.

 

Umm I ride the C often my perception is riders bunch up around the 1st and 8th cars so it appears abit crazy. So yeah 10 cars would spread things out.It’s a heavy used line don’t get me wrong but it’s no .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I agree. Also the is just incognito sometimes, so people pile into the and many times Manhattan bound trips get to Hoyt-Schermerhorn without an passing it, same happens Brooklyn Bound sometimes.

 

The/(my) reasoning is, 'why wait for the when the won't be passed until Utica Av or Broadway Junction anyway?' I've been on a Euclid Ave bound that was not passed until Shepherd Ave.

[Around the Horn]

The ENY R32's will have to go back to 207th by default. The inspection barn can't fit a full 10 car train. Thats one of the main reasons why the R32's were all at 207th post june 2010. The A/C can share equipment. If anything i would give CIY 10 sets of R46's for R160B's 9103-9222 for service and have the R46's on the . But i doubt CIY would want to give up R160's unless they give up more R160's to jamaica.

 

Which inspection barn can't handle ten cars? Coney Island? Cause thats where they'd go if on the ...

[R32 3838]

Which inspection barn can't handle ten cars? Coney Island? Cause thats where they'd go if on the ...

207th st inspection barn can't fit a full 600 foot car

[Gotham Bus Co.]

 

I would actually not mind if the MTA were to revert NYCT/MTAB back to City control, on two conditions:

• The City gains the power to toll any bridges into Manhattan, MTA controlled or otherwise
• The City gains the dedicated MTA tax revenue that is generated inside the five boroughs. At least 75%, with a little bit going towards the railroads or whatever.

 

But then the Mayor and City Council would become fully responsible (legally, financially, and politically) for the system. How likely is that?

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

The doesn't have the ridership for full 10 car trains. 8 is perfectly fine for that line.

I see Lhota's statement as a slight nod to keeping trains in reserve which would require more cars being placed in sections of unused track.

 

Personally I think they should experiment with a peak version of the starting at Lefferts Blvd and running express to Hoyt.

In exchange, one express train from Lefferts Blvd should supplant the peak trains coming from Rockaway Park.

In the evening rush, the reverse.

But then the Mayor and City Council would become fully responsible (legally, financially, and politically) for the system. How likely is that?

very unlikely as they both like to grandstand.

Neither is in a position to talk down to the other.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

 

This is really the money quote. While I agree with 50/50 splits for this, the MTA's long term financial outlook has always been very poor. There are three sources of MTA funding right now:

 

• Tolls on roads and bridges. This has an upper limit, since higher tolls always push people towards the free bridges, and Port Authority has basically reached the ceiling on how high you can raise that without pissing everyone off.
• Cyclical taxes. The MTA has dedicated tax funding, but most of these come from very cyclical sources, like real estate transactions and sales. If, say, the real estate bubble were to explode, the MTA would be walloped pretty hard.
• General funding from the state. This keeps getting cut in the name of fiscal responsibility, and really, ask NJT how much good general funding has done for it.

I would actually not mind if the MTA were to revert NYCT/MTAB back to City control, on two conditions:

• The City gains the power to toll any bridges into Manhattan, MTA controlled or otherwise
• The City gains the dedicated MTA tax revenue that is generated inside the five boroughs. At least 75%, with a little bit going towards the railroads or whatever.

 

The ability to toll East River crossings would not only generate revenue, but lower midtown traffic which should be a welcome change for drivers sick of traffic.

But somehow all these years, these ideas have been left to die. I think incentives should also be included in toll crossings, like half price after midnight and bundles for CDL drivers and lower prices for TLCs during rush hour only.

 

Giving discounts to multiple classes of driver during the same time frame defeats the purpose of diverting traffic.

 

I also feel each bridge needs to be apportioned differently, like one bridge having higher prices during rush hour for certain vehicle types and the ones left out enjoying those benefits on a different bridge.

 

Because the Bklyn Bridge is already closed to CDL traffic, I feel prices should be highest to deter excess traffic from stressing the bridge further.

[RailRunRob]

live from Lhota!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_LeY5bhB4

[Deucey]

<p>

 

This is really the money quote. While I agree with 50/50 splits for this, the MTA's long term financial outlook has always been very poor. There are three sources of MTA funding right now:

 

• Tolls on roads and bridges. This has an upper limit, since higher tolls always push people towards the free bridges, and Port Authority has basically reached the ceiling on how high you can raise that without pissing everyone off.
• Cyclical taxes. The MTA has dedicated tax funding, but most of these come from very cyclical sources, like real estate transactions and sales. If, say, the real estate bubble were to explode, the MTA would be walloped pretty hard.
• General funding from the state. This keeps getting cut in the name of fiscal responsibility, and really, ask NJT how much good general funding has done for it...

Which is why a dedicated sales tax a la LA's MTA should be considered. Even if it's 2¢ on the dollar for purchases like non-raw foods and beverages, as well as goods (excluding clothing, as that's tax free up to a certain amount), that could be a substantial amount that could go towards maintenance and expansion. And it'd catch everyone that buys anything in the five boroughs, so it's not just city dwellers footing the bill.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Which is why a dedicated sales tax a la LA's MTA should be considered. Even if it's 2¢ on the dollar for purchases like non-raw foods and beverages, as well as goods (excluding clothing, as that's tax free up to a certain amount), that could be a substantial amount that could go towards maintenance and expansion. And it'd catch everyone that buys anything in the five boroughs, so it's not just city dwellers footing the bill.

No more taxes! Enough is enough. New York pays some of the highest taxes in the country and I am sick of the having their hands in my pockets. They get enough via tolls, cell phone surcharges and every time anyone takes taxis. On top of that now the City just went and started digging in our pockets with the latest paychecks this month. Meanwhile the City is sitting on a surplus and the State has money to spend too. Let the City and State put up the monies that EXISTS and stop coming to the taxpayers asking for more and more and more. It never ends. There's enough money around. Make it work!

 

What they should do is look to find more money out of the tourists. They are destroying our City filthing up the streets. Charge them for coming here for the inconvenience. The high taxes is why MILLIONS continue the flee the State. The shakedown has to end. You keep overtaxing and eventually there will be no one to tax!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

This is really the money quote. While I agree with 50/50 splits for this, the MTA's long term financial outlook has always been very poor. There are three sources of MTA funding right now:

 

• Tolls on roads and bridges. This has an upper limit, since higher tolls always push people towards the free bridges, and Port Authority has basically reached the ceiling on how high you can raise that without pissing everyone off.
• Cyclical taxes. The MTA has dedicated tax funding, but most of these come from very cyclical sources, like real estate transactions and sales. If, say, the real estate bubble were to explode, the MTA would be walloped pretty hard.
• General funding from the state. This keeps getting cut in the name of fiscal responsibility, and really, ask NJT how much good general funding has done for it.

I would actually not mind if the MTA were to revert NYCT/MTAB back to City control, on two conditions:

• The City gains the power to toll any bridges into Manhattan, MTA controlled or otherwise
• The City gains the dedicated MTA tax revenue that is generated inside the five boroughs. At least 75%, with a little bit going towards the railroads or whatever.

 

Oh please. Always with the real estate BS line. They're sitting on a lot of real estate that they are maximizing profit on. If they were doing that then I would perhaps agree, but as it stands they aren't.

[S78 via Hylan]

My take on the is despite the increaed in ridership, I've never seen it crowded to the extent where passengers were left on the platform other than waiting for an . During the reverse-peak in the AM, Euclid Av-bound trains tend to be empty.

[RailRunRob]

I think part of it is because of the R160s, people don't mind staying on the train. Also, the doesn't run frequently enough to 'catch the express to catch up to the next local'. If you see a at 59th street, odds are that's the same train you'll be waiting for at 125th or 145th.

 

I agree. Also the is just incognito sometimes, so people pile into the and many times Manhattan bound trips get to Hoyt-Schermerhorn without an passing it, same happens Brooklyn Bound sometimes.

 

The/(my) reasoning is, 'why wait for the when the won't be passed until Utica Av or Broadway Junction anyway?' I've been on a Euclid Ave bound that was not passed until Shepherd Ave.

Indeed the is a pretty fast local I’ve started my trips at 145th on several occasions and not had a catch up until Nostrand.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Far Rock Depot]

I was wondering how they were going to increase the overhaul capabilities by 150 cars per year. I guess staffing the shops for full 24/7 shifts should do the trick.

 

Anyone looking to get their foot in the door, now's your chance.

 

The station-based EMTs is a good idea. Here in DC if a sick customer is ambulatory and can be moved, they will usually have a station manager at the closest station remain with the customer on the platform until help arrives and takes the customer away or releases them. That way trains can keep moving if there are no other issues.

 

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

They're suppose to so that here too if the passenger can be moved, and there's another MTA employee or NYPD there.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Far Rock Depot]

The thing with the C is, they share track with the A from canal to Hoyt. The timing of that only has A trains passing an average two C tains each trip. One in Manhattan and sometimes another one in Brooklyn. Usually its just one. This also has to account that there are no delays on the A. I recall having the last southbound express trip southbound (which I now frequent as a passenger) that may, or may not catch up and pass the last C at Canal st. If we get to pass that C we'll catch up to its leader by Shepard or at Euclid. If the C plugs us, we pass it at around Clinton or Fulton and thats the only C we'll pass.

And the crowding is usually the worst at the bends of the trains due to most of the popular stops in Brooklyn having their entrances/exits at the ends of the platforms.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Which is why a dedicated sales tax a la LA's MTA should be considered. Even if it's 2¢ on the dollar for purchases like non-raw foods and beverages, as well as goods (excluding clothing, as that's tax free up to a certain amount), that could be a substantial amount that could go towards maintenance and expansion. And it'd catch everyone that buys anything in the five boroughs, so it's not just city dwellers footing the bill.

 

There already is one, but the governor keeps using the money for other things. (There's no point in having a "lockbox" if the Governor holds the key.)

[CenSin]

Which is why a dedicated sales tax a la LA's MTA should be considered. Even if it's 2¢ on the dollar for purchases like non-raw foods and beverages, as well as goods (excluding clothing, as that's tax free up to a certain amount), that could be a substantial amount that could go towards maintenance and expansion. And it'd catch everyone that buys anything in the five boroughs, so it's not just city dwellers footing the bill.

Also do bag checks at the bridges and tunnels to make sure them outsiders aren’t bringing in New Jersey-bought items into the city.

I see Lhota's statement as a slight nod to keeping trains in reserve which would require more cars being placed in sections of unused track.

With newer parts of the subway being built with no reserve trackage, this will be of use in only the oldest parts of the system. Most elevated lines have extra track space to spare for gap trains. And this should be true of most outer-borough IND lines where express service is part-time or not present.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

With newer parts of the subway being built with no reserve trackage, this will be of use in only the oldest parts of the system. Most elevated lines have extra track space to spare for gap trains. And this should be true of most outer-borough IND lines where express service is part-time or not present.

Since breakdowns happen closest to aging infrastructure, that's still a great idea, especially for the 8th Avenue Line in Manhattan.

Those commuters at 155th last Monday would've been loads happier, no pun intended.

 

I think adding bi-directional functions to certain stations, especially chokepoints, would also help with congestion, allowing trains to overtake a problematic platform so customers can disembark safely.

[Deucey]

There already is one, but the governor keeps using the money for other things. (There's no point in having a "lockbox" if the Governor holds the key.)

So there's no legal mechanism to keep Albany from stealing local sales tax revenue nor one for a locality to add to the statewide rate?

 

(Example: California has statewide 7% sales tax. Cities and counties have added on additional rates for the general fund - raising it to 8 or 9%, then voters can approve additional rates, like LA's Measure R, that added 1/2¢ to it to fund transportation projects and operations when the State cutback transportation funding after Gray Davis' energy crisis and Schwarzenegger's deficit. Because they're local, the State can't raid the monies from the add-ons and it can't revoke it from LA without revoking it from every other locality without a constitutional amendment.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Also do bag checks at the bridges and tunnels to make sure them outsiders aren’t bringing in New Jersey-bought items into the city.

 

Oh please.  The answer isn't to penalize New Yorkers.  The answer is to LOWER taxes.  People go to New Jersey because they don't nickel and dime their residents for everything.  I have no problem going to Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom in New Jersey because clothing is TAX free. Why should I pay an arm and a leg for cufflinks or dress shirts or work pants when I can get them without the tax?  

[RailRunRob]

Oh please. The answer isn't to penalize New Yorkers. The answer is to LOWER taxes. People go to New Jersey because they don't nickel and dime their residents for everything. I have no problem going to Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom in New Jersey because clothing is TAX free. Why should I pay an arm and a leg for cufflinks or dress shirts or work pants when I can get them without the tax?

Or you could move to New Jersey? Lol! Don’t think New York has a shortage of people to fill the gap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Or you could move to New Jersey? Lol! Don’t think New York has a shortage of people to fill the gap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Actually New York saw a decline in population for the first time in years, so the idea that there is a never ending of supply of people coming here is false.

 

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-state-population-drops-time-decade-article-1.2917757

 

 

 

New York is losing more people to other states than it's gaining

 

Source: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/jan/20/edward-cox/new-york-losing-more-people-other-states-its-gaini/

 

There's a difference between taxing and over taxation and there are places at the moment where people with money are moving to that offer better quality.  My stance has nothing to do with me wanting to move elsewhere.  My stance is with regards to maintaining a healthy tax base here for the long term.  Cuomo admitted when he first took office that we had to lower taxes/get taxes under control to keep more of our residents here and attract and keep businesses here.  You can't possibly be that dense to believe that it's a good thing to have out of control taxes just because.  It's not healthy for any local economy, I don't care where you live.  Just look at the mess in California, or even better out on Long Island.  Plenty of people with money there, but long-term it isn't healthy for the young folks coming who can't/won't be able to afford anything. Without those people, you'll have a shrinking tax base.

 

Maybe you believe in overpaying for things just because, but I sure as hell don't.

[RailRunRob]

Actually New York saw a decline in population for the first time in years, so the idea that there is a never ending of supply of people coming here is false.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-state-population-drops-time-decade-article-1.2917757

 

There's a difference between taxing and over taxation and there are places at the moment where people with money are moving to that offer better quality. My stance has nothing to do with me wanting to move elsewhere. My stance is with regards to maintaining a healthy tax base here for the long term. Cuomo admitted when he first took office that we had to lower taxes/get taxes under control to keep more of our residents here and attract and keep businesses here. You can't possibly be that dense to believe that it's a good thing to have out of control taxes just because. It's not healthy for any local economy, I don't care where you live. Just look at the mess in California, or even better out on Long Island. Plenty of people with money there, but long-term it isn't healthy for the young folks coming who can't/won't be able to afford anything. Without those people, you'll have a shrinking tax base.

I employed 11 people last year so if anyone wants lower taxes it’s me trust me. Why wouldn’t I want to keep more of what my business earns. I’ve paid taxes in both CA and NY And I mean honestly I hear the tax arguments so much. I have to view my paying tax both personal and business as my duty it’s my rent for space and the opportunity to live in the economic hub of the Country It’s just a given true we expect certain services and support that our tax dollars support and pay for. In the same way I expect a landlord to make sure my water is hot. Could the tax be lowered sure would I like a break? Sure!!You have to pay to play the great thing is you have options there tons of areas one could relocate to. Some people are relocating I had a good friend just move to Oregon but there’s more people coming in then leaving the booms here in Brooklyn and LIC should tell you that this is a generation of people moving to cities and New York will always be one of the top spots. Point is we all pay taxes is it high here? Yeah abit but this NY we’re talking about not Charlotte.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I employed 11 people last year so if anyone wants lower taxes it’s me trust me. Why wouldn’t I want to keep more of what my business earns. I’ve paid taxes in both CA and NY And I mean honestly I hear the tax arguments so much. I have to view my paying tax both personal and business as my duty it’s my rent for space and the opportunity to live in the economic hub of the Country It’s just a given true we expect certain services and support that our tax dollars support and pay for. In the same way I expect a landlord to make sure my water is hot. Could the tax be lowered sure would I like a break? Sure!!You have to pay to play the great thing is you have options there tons of areas one could relocate to. Some people are relocating I had a good friend just move to Oregon but there’s more people coming in then leaving the booms here in Brooklyn and LIC should tell you that this is a generation of people moving to cities and New York will always be one of the top spots. Point is we all pay taxes is it high here? Yeah abit but this NY we’re talking about not Charlotte.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

That's not the point.  Brooklyn and LIC don't represent all of NY and I have no problem paying my fair share.  As someone who is not married, I'm pretty sure I am taxed much more than someone like yourself who is likely married.  Single professionals like myself get to write-off less, so if there's anyone who knows about paying their fair share it's me.  I'm sure you know as a small business owner that you get tax breaks. I get them as well having my own side business.  The issue here is what are we getting for what we're paying?  If you were telling people that they're paying a lot but they can get to work on the subway then sure that's fine.  

 

The problem is what is being paid for vs. what we're receiving in return, and the answer isn't telling people to move elsewhere.  The answer is to hold people accountable.  Just because you pay more for something doesn't mean better quality, and basically I'm saying we already pay enough, more than our fair share.  The has said that they plan to implement these improvements WITHOUT raising the fares, and that's the way it should be.  They've received more than enough fare hikes in the last few years. It's time for them to start managing what they have.  That's the one thing I agree with in terms of what de Blasio has said. If they need a little more funding, sure, come back to the State AND the City and show what it's being used for, but coming back with your hands out and little to show for it is simply unacceptable, and as a taxpayer, I have a problem with the astronomical costs of some of these projects.  They want $8 billion to bring the system into the 21st century?  Ok, sure, then I should see clean platforms that actually get power washed on a regular basis (they do have the equipment for such things, so how about they use it?), not just someone sweeping once in a while with rats running everywhere. This is what you see in other systems like Boston, which runs a much older system than ours, 24/7 or not.

 

It's funny that we can talk about how NYC is the center of everything except for when it comes to expecting accountability from the .  I don't want to hear about how the system is 24/7.  That is no excuse to not have clean stations that are functionally sound and trains that constantly break down because of "mechanical problems" (whatever the hell that means, but it's been a regular problem of late).  That just means you have to look at how things are planned and make changes to make it happen.