State controller says MTA needs more money to avoid fare hikes

[Via Garibaldi 8]

State controller says MTA needs more money to avoid fare hikes

BY DAN RIVOLI 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Thursday, November 9, 2017, 9:00 AM

Riders might see fare hikes unless the MTA finds an adequate source of money, according to a state controller report.

 (ANTHONY DELMUNDO/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

 

The state’s financial watchdog is warning the MTA that it better get new sources of revenue or else riders are going to carry even more of the burden in funding subway operations through fare hikes.

State Controller Thomas DiNapoli on Thursday issued a report that said that if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority can’t get more financial aid, it would have to ask riders and drivers to fork over more money in fares and tolls.

“In the absence of adequate funding, the system could fall into further disrepair and riders could face unplanned fare hikes,” DiNapoli said. “The state and city need to find solutions to prevent these possibilities from becoming reality, and the MTA must make the best use of its resources.”

The latest argument in transit between Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio concerns funding the MTA.

Leaders at the MTA, which Cuomo effectively controls, have asked that the city cover half of the agency’s $836 million subway rescue plan. De Blasio has balked, arguing that the state has responsibility over the MTA and that officials had raided money meant for transit for years.

State Controller Thomas DiNapoli says the state and city must work together to improve MTA funding.

 (MIKE GROLL/AP)

MTA Chairman Joe Lhota and other agency officials threatened to pare down the plan if the city refuses to spend more money.

The impasse caused Cuomo and de Blasio to issue two dueling funding measures.

Cuomo set up a panel to craft a congestion pricing plan to cut down on gridlock in Manhattan while generating new revenues for mass transit.

De Blasio rejects congestion pricing and instead wants state lawmakers to approve a tax on wealthy New Yorkers to generate money for transit.

Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo have clashed over ways to fund mass transit.

 (LUIZ C. RIBEIRO/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS )

DiNapoli’s report lays out the funding challenges the MTA faces: funding the subway action plan, covering the $300 million a year cost to pay for new workers and maintenance and paying for the next agency capital repair program that will include an extra $8 billion worth of work for the subway.

Lhota in response to DiNapoli’s report denied that the MTA would seek an unplanned fare and toll hike. Fare and toll increases are done every two years, with the next hike coming in 2019.

“The MTA needs a steady income stream to continue to maintain a state-of-good repair while at the same time upgrade and expand the system. We are extremely encouraged by the growing support for congestion pricing and we categorically reject the idea of any unplanned fare increases,” Lhota said. “Funding subway repairs will not come on the backs of riders and the [controller] is fear-mongering by injecting unplanned fare increases into the public discourse.”

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/state-controller-mta-money-avoid-fare-hikes-article-1.3620425

[N6 Limited]

Didn't the MTA board agree to raise the fare/tolls every 2 years anyway?

[Deucey]

And water is wet.

It's insane that politics, bipartisanly, have led to crumbling infrastructure because the right doesn't want to pay the taxes to fund properly maintained transit and roads (ie Fat Bastarf and the NJT cuts) while the left comes up with scheme after scheme to use infrastructure money for instead of the original purpose (ie Billy D not ponying up the money to keep his city moving but willing to build a streetcar slower than the B62; California building a high speed train between Fresno and a state prison etc).

Billy D and Prince Andy of Westchester Duke of Albany need to have a summit and find an agreement.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Didn't the MTA board agree to raise the fare/tolls every 2 years anyway?

They didn't agree, it's literally the law.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 hours ago, Deucey said:

And water is wet.

It's insane that politics, bipartisanly, have led to crumbling infrastructure because the right doesn't want to pay the taxes to fund properly maintained transit and roads (ie Fat Bastarf and the NJT cuts) while the left comes up with scheme after scheme to use infrastructure money for instead of the original purpose (ie Billy D not ponying up the money to keep his city moving but willing to build a streetcar slower than the B62; California building a high speed train between Fresno and a state prison etc).

Billy D and Prince Andy of Westchester Duke of Albany need to have a summit and find an agreement.

Oh let's not blame the right here.  The right has essentially been opposed because of out of control costs. As a fiscal conservative I agree.  We should be able to get the work done without these egregious costs.  If you're comfortable forking over $1 billion per station like the Fulton Street hub, only to see it look like garbage in a few years (I can't believe how dirty parts of that station is already), then by all means, but I think the costs are simply out of control.  Get costs down, and get the labor unions to make more concessions.  Having fare hikes every time we blink an eye just isn't sustainable, and I would rather see congestion pricing come into play than taxing wealthy New Yorkers just because they earn more.  That's simply un-American.  They give an extreme amount of their money to great causes (many are philanthropists) and given how many have been fleeing New York, we can ill afford to lose more taxpayers.  

Many New Yorkers are already overtaxed. If you're single in NYC, you already pay extremely high rates in taxes (I know given the chunk of taxes I pay each paycheck, and God knows where it all goes), so I sympathize with those who are overtaxed.

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh let's not blame the right here.  The right has essentially been opposed because of out of control costs. As a fiscal conservative I agree.  We should be able to get the work done without these egregious costs.  If you're comfortable forking over $1 billion per station like the Fulton Street hub, only to see it look like garbage in a few years (I can't believe how dirty parts of that station is already), then by all means, but I think the costs are simply out of control.  Get costs down, and get the labor unions to make more concessions.  Having fare hikes every time we blink an eye just isn't sustainable, and I would rather see congestion pricing come into play than taxing wealthy New Yorkers just because they earn more.  That's simply un-American.  They give an extreme amount of their money to great causes (many are philanthropists) and given how many have been fleeing New York, we can ill afford to lose more taxpayers.  

Many New Yorkers are already overtaxed. If you're single in NYC, you already pay extremely high rates in taxes (I know given the chunk of taxes I pay each paycheck, and God knows where it all goes), so I sympathize with those who are overtaxed.

I agree with the overtaxing, but you and I both are old enough to remember the Right and their “Starve the Beast” mantra of the last two decades that exacerbated the issue of infrastructure disrepair now, nationally. 

Its that mentality, and Clinton-Bush eliminating Chinese tariffs by letting that nation in the WTO that led to red state unemployment accelerating faster and low quality Chinese steel making maintenance more expensive (one repercussion of many).

NYC being the exception - since graft and corruption here from the days before Tammany Hall always made this place more expensive - the rest of the country just needs adequate funding. Here, a true reform and revision of statutes is required.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

I agree with the overtaxing, but you and I both are old enough to remember the Right and their “Starve the Beast” mantra of the last two decades that exacerbated the issue of infrastructure disrepair now, nationally. 

Its that mentality, and Clinton-Bush eliminating Chinese tariffs by letting that nation in the WTO that led to red state unemployment accelerating faster and low quality Chinese steel making maintenance more expensive (one repercussion of many).

NYC being the exception - since graft and corruption here from the days before Tammany Hall always made this place more expensive - the rest of the country just needs adequate funding. Here, a true reform and revision of statutes is required.

You get no complaints from me about using American steel.  One of the many reasons that I'm a protectionist.

[itmaybeokay]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Get costs down, and get the labor unions to make more concessions. 

Yes! Fix the problem by building it on the backs of the working class! Perfect!

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 I would rather see congestion pricing come into play than taxing wealthy New Yorkers just because they earn more.  That's simply un-American. 

You're right! Income based tax brackets which increase in percentage as total income increases, such as has been in place for most of this century is decidedly unamerican!

Further, the 1955 top income tax bracket of 91% is so un-american, so very communist even, that it's a miracle we beat those dirty reds in the cold war!

And especially, the first peace-time income tax imposed by the federal government, an 1894 4% tax on incomes over $4000   ($106,000 adjusted for inflation)

That tax which looks exactly like this one is the most unamerican of all. 

Yes all of these features of american history are decidedly unamerican. 

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

22 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

1. Yes! Fix the problem by building it on the backs of the working class! Perfect!

2. You're right! Income based tax brackets which increase in percentage as total income increases, such as has been in place for most of this century is decidedly unamerican!

Further, the 1955 top income tax bracket of 91% is so un-american, so very communist even, that it's a miracle we beat those dirty reds in the cold war!

And especially, the first peace-time income tax imposed by the federal government, an 1894 4% tax on incomes over $4000   ($106,000 adjusted for inflation)

3. That tax which looks exactly like this one is the most unamerican of all. 

Yes all of these features of american history are decidedly unamerican. 

 

 

1.  Oh please.  We who work in the private sector have made concessions for years.  Don't get me wrong, I am pro-union to a degree, but the unions drive up costs unnecessarily in some cases.

2. BS. De Blasio's suggestion unfairly taxes those with more to give to those with less.  He wants to give New Yorkers that likely don't pay the fare anyway half-fare free Metrocards (which I'm sure they'll turn around and sell for a quick buck and keep hopping the turnstiles for free).  Where do the handouts end?  Listen, some poor sap making $15,000 - 30,000 a year is already gaming the system. If they're a healthy, able-bodied individual getting a number of freebies, let them pay their fair share in taxes.  We both know that the poor don't pay nearly enough, which leaves the middle class holding the bag, not to mention single folks in this city and the rich who become the punching bag.  It's a disgrace how single professionals in this city are raped with over taxation.  The rich should not be punished for investing and being fiscally sound.  Our system says that anyone can make it to the top, and those that are there shouldn't be penalized for their success to give back to the poor, many of whom refuse to do more to help themselves get out of the mess that they're in.  

3.  Explain how congestion pricing is soooo un-American?   The Europeans have been doing it for some time and you know what? It works!  We have tolls on most of the bridges and tunnels here, and yet it's a crime to charge a toll to alleviate the most congested areas of our city?  Those who wish to avoid the toll can come in other ways.  

[itmaybeokay]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1.  Oh please.  We who work in the private sector have made concessions for years.  Don't get me wrong, I am pro-union to a degree, but the unions drive up costs unnecessarily in some cases.

2. BS. De Blasio's suggestion unfairly taxes those with more to give to those with less.  He wants to give New Yorkers that likely don't pay the fare anyway half-fare free Metrocards (which I'm sure they'll turnaround and sell for a quick buck and keep hopping the turnstiles for free).  Where do the handouts end?  Listen, some poor sap making $15,000 - 30,000 a year is already gaming the system. If they're a healthy, able-bodied individual getting a number of freebies, let them pay their fair share in taxes.  We both know that the poor don't pay nearly enough, which leaves the middle class holding the bag, not to mention single folks in this city and the rich who become the punching bag.  It's a disgrace how single professionals in this city are raped with over taxation.  The rich should not be punished for investing and being fiscally sound.  Our system says that anyone can make it to the top, and those that are there should be penalized for their success to give back to the poor, many of whom refuse to do more to help themselves get out of the mess that they're in.  

3.  Explain how congestion pricing is soooo un-American?   The Europeans have been doing it for some time and you know what? It works!  

 

2. to be clear: you're suggesting the poor do not pay enough taxes and the rich pay too much taxes? 

3. I wasn't commenting on the congestion pricing. I was just saying, through sarcasm, that taxing a high income bracket only isn't anything new and radical, and history suggests there is not anything unamerican about it. 

 

I don't have much issue with congestion pricing to be honest. In fairness though, if the concept is to divert motorists to alternate means of transport, then the alternate means ought to be viable. I think one would want to get the transit network up to a peak operational condition *before* applying the congestion pricing, such as that it could handle whatever increase in use it sees. 

As such, applying congestion pricing AS A MEANS of funding transit improvements that only get the system back to baseline is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, itmaybeokay said:

 

2. to be clear: you're suggesting the poor do not pay enough taxes and the rich pay too much taxes? 

3. I wasn't commenting on the congestion pricing. I was just saying, through sarcasm, that taxing a high income bracket only isn't anything new and radical, and history suggests there is not anything unamerican about it. 

 

I don't have much issue with congestion pricing to be honest. In fairness though, if the concept is to divert motorists to alternate means of transport, then the alternate means ought to be viable. I think one would want to get the transit network up to a peak operational condition *before* applying the congestion pricing, such as that it could handle whatever increase in use it sees. 

As such, applying congestion pricing AS A MEANS of funding transit improvements that only get the system back to baseline is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. 

2.  No, I'm saying that the poor do not pay enough taxes, and that "penalizing" the rich by way of higher taxes to give more handouts to the poor is foolish.  The rich are the more mobile of the two, and we've already lost enough taxpayers as it is.  Do you think we can afford to lose more, considering how much the poor take in public services versus what they give? I for one don't think so.  The rich historically just move their money elsewhere when they're faced with such situations, and I think it's arrogant on de Blasio's part to think that people won't up and leave.  Plenty of other great places to park your money with little to no taxes taken from it... Florida, some of the islands, Switzerland, etc.  They would all gladly take the money.  

3.  No it isn't, but trying to levy additional taxes besides what is already collected because someone has more money is totally un-American. This is what de Blasio is trying to do, as if New Yorkers don't already pay enough in taxes.

Additionally, we have to start somewhere.  First I would put a cap on the number of Uber and Lyft cars on the road. There's a cap on yellow taxis but not on Ubers and Lyfts.  Not only is that unfair to the yellow taxi industry, it has led to severe congestion as people who were using transit now take Uber and Lyft instead, and many of those drivers are just parking all over the place trying to get fares, blocking up traffic regularly, so we have a case where people already using public transit that clearly can are now flocking to services that are adding to the congestion problem.  If they want to do that fine, but levy the fee that is levied upon yellow taxi passengers and give that to the  to help them get their house in order.  I have been watching this play out over the last several months (the public hearings are on Channel 25) and it seems absurd to me that the City has moved ever so slowly to do anything about Uber and Lyft when they clearly are causing more congestion.

After you tackle that situation, then you have to come up with a congestion plan that incentivizes carpooling at a minimum.  I see far too many people driving and they're the only ones in their cars.  Start with that, then look at how you can cap the number of cars coming in, as well as cap the number of delivery trucks and have more of them make deliveries at night or over night when traffic isn't as severe.  That alone would help the process go in the right direction and give the  time to get some things in order before taking more severe measures with congestion pricing.

[itmaybeokay]

2. We clearly fundamentally disagree on macroeconomic theory and upward mobility so I'm not going to try to convince you. 

 

3. I don't disagree with medallioning uber and lyft cars, provided that, much like the green cabs, outer boros with fewer transit options are somehow allowed more. 

Requiring deliveries be made at night would be rather onerous on businesses, as in most cases someone has to be there to accept the delivery. Some buildings have 24-hr receiving but plenty of establishments do not.  That's like a 20k/yr charge to a business that has to hire someone for the night shift to take shipments. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

2. We clearly fundamentally disagree on macroeconomic theory and upward mobility so I'm not going to try to convince you. 

 

3. I don't disagree with medallioning uber and lyft cars, provided that, much like the green cabs, outer boros with fewer transit options are somehow allowed more. 

Requiring deliveries be made at night would be rather onerous on businesses, as in most cases someone has to be there to accept the delivery. Some buildings have 24-hr receiving but plenty of establishments do not.  That's like a 20k/yr charge to a business that has to hire someone for the night shift to take shipments. 

2.  That's good because I don't believe in over taxation, regardless of one's upward mobility.  It's one thing to pay your fair share, and another for the government to dig in your pocket and take just because you earn more.  The more money you make, the more expenses you have which some people seem to forget.  

3. The City seems to be on board with this idea, and has stated it will provide aid to businesses that face the aforementioned problem you described.

[itmaybeokay]

On 11/15/2017 at 3:30 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The more money you make, the more expenses you have which some people seem to forget. 

No - there's no direct correlation between increasing income and increasing expenses. People make the choice to spend more. 

Generally economists agree that poverty is itself, vexingly, expensive. 

But don't take it from me, take it from the economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor

or the atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/it-is-expensive-to-be-poor/282979/

or the times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charles-blow-how-expensive-it-is-to-be-poor.html

which notes that the majority of wealthy american's share your idea of "poor people have it easy" as per a pew research center study

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt-undercut-by-low-participation/

The author of the times piece has this to say of your and their viewpoints. I would tend to agree:

Quote

This is an infuriatingly obtuse view of what it means to be poor in this country — the soul-rending omnipresence of worry and fear, of weariness and fatigue. This can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what poverty truly means.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

No - there's no direct correlation between increasing income and increasing expenses. People make the choice to spend more. 

Generally economists agree that poverty is itself, vexingly, expensive. 

But don't take it from me, take it from the economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor

or the atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/it-is-expensive-to-be-poor/282979/

or the times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charles-blow-how-expensive-it-is-to-be-poor.html

which notes that the majority of wealthy american's share your idea of "poor people have it easy" as per a pew research center study

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt-undercut-by-low-participation/

The author of the times piece has this to say of your and their viewpoints. I would tend to agree:

 

Oh please.  I used to respect the Times and was an avid reader, but they've become more leftists by the day with the rhetoric that they spew.  Most NY Times readers are well off anyway and have no idea what the real deal is.  The upper middle class and professional folks... We're the ones working, running departments or running businesses, so naturally we spend more money.  Time is money is this world.  The poor have it easy because they get numerous handouts.  I'd like to see some poor people that work 12+ plus days and pay their fair share of taxes the way us professionals do.  Fat chance of that happening.  When they pull their own weight then I'll consider these NY Times pieces.

[quadcorder]

5 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

No - there's no direct correlation between increasing income and increasing expenses. People make the choice to spend more. 

Generally economists agree that poverty is itself, vexingly, expensive. 

But don't take it from me, take it from the economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor

or the atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/it-is-expensive-to-be-poor/282979/

or the times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charles-blow-how-expensive-it-is-to-be-poor.html

which notes that the majority of wealthy american's share your idea of "poor people have it easy" as per a pew research center study

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt-undercut-by-low-participation/

The author of the times piece has this to say of your and their viewpoints. I would tend to agree:

 

Stop trying to argue with him... it's useless, he doesn't listen to facts. Stick to the threads he isn't ruining with his bigotry, and you'll enjoy this forum a lot more.

[LTA1992]

So I was at a holiday party last night and a friend of mine brought up something that I haven't thought of. 

Would the fare be an issue if the minimum wage went up at a rate that reflected inflation? Would people have even noticed as much? And would people be more willing to pay it?

 Like, for example, 2.75 is less of a burden for me now that 11 is the minimum,and it will be even less if a worry when it goes to 13.50 January 1st. I'm making more, so I feel like I have more of a cushion to cover everything I need without worry. It's that lack of worry that makes me more willing. 

It's something I need to look into. Maybe go in depth when I finally begin a series of documentaries on the system. As I intend for one of the parts to cover the fare.

 

[B35 via Church]

43 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

So I was at a holiday party last night and a friend of mine brought up something that I haven't thought of. 

Would the fare be an issue if the minimum wage went up at a rate that reflected inflation? Would people have even noticed as much? And would people be more willing to pay it?

 Like, for example, 2.75 is less of a burden for me now that 11 is the minimum,and it will be even less if a worry when it goes to 13.50 January 1st. I'm making more, so I feel like I have more of a cushion to cover everything I need without worry. It's that lack of worry that makes me more willing. 

It's something I need to look into. Maybe go in depth when I finally begin a series of documentaries on the system. As I intend for one of the parts to cover the fare.

To the first two questions..... Well as long as you have a collective of people that have the general attitude that public transportation should be free, yes....

I don't believe the base fare of 2.75 itself is the real problem (as much as ppl. like to let on anyway), as much as it is that they simply don't want to pay it, and/or don't think that 2.75 a pop is worth it.... The latter of the two I believe a lot of NY-ers fall under the category of; (fed up with) quality of service, regardless of mode.....

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

To the first two questions..... Well as long as you have a collective of people that have the general attitude that public transportation should be free, yes....

I don't believe the base fare of 2.75 itself is the real problem (as much as ppl. like to let on anyway), as much as it is that they simply don't want to pay it, and/or don't think that 2.75 a pop is worth it.... The latter of the two I believe a lot of NY-ers fall under the category of; (fed up with) quality of service, regardless of mode.....

 

I had to re-fill my card last night after taking a few more unplanned trips today, and I noticed several people only putting the bare minimum $2.75.  I get the impression that there are a lot of people that survive day-to-day in terms of pay here, and that may be more and more common.  With the holidays coming up, I don't need a weekly like I used to since I don't travel as much sometimes, so only now has it been more noticeable with me doing more pay-per-rides.

2 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

So I was at a holiday party last night and a friend of mine brought up something that I haven't thought of. 

Would the fare be an issue if the minimum wage went up at a rate that reflected inflation? Would people have even noticed as much? And would people be more willing to pay it?

 Like, for example, 2.75 is less of a burden for me now that 11 is the minimum,and it will be even less if a worry when it goes to 13.50 January 1st. I'm making more, so I feel like I have more of a cushion to cover everything I need without worry. It's that lack of worry that makes me more willing. 

It's something I need to look into. Maybe go in depth when I finally begin a series of documentaries on the system. As I intend for one of the parts to cover the fare.

 

Unless your other expenses remain relatively flat, I'm not sure how you can come to such a conclusion.  It isn't just the fare that shot up so fast.  Rent has shot up in this city, which in turn has forced businesses to raise prices on food and other goods to cover those costs, so while my earnings have gone up just about every year for the last few years, I've noticed the difference in the fare because everything else has gone up, despite me having more money.  I think it wasn't until the last few fare hikes that I started thinking about looking at how much I was spending on transit a month.  You have to put the costs into perspective.  $5.50 a day isn't that bad because these days $5.50 barely even gets you a healthy drink and a large bag of veggie chips in the supermarket.  Then I look at what I can buy for say $13.00 if I didn't take the express bus.  Well that gets me a sandwich from one of my spots ($10.00 roughly).  $24.00 gets me a nice take-out lunch if I elect to skip Metro-North.  That to me is the biggest kicker.  I think we also need more pass options though.  There are times when I don't need a weekly and a pay-per-ride isn't all that cost effective either, but I get a weekly despite not using it for 2 - 3 days because if I take the express bus just 4 days round trip, it's $52.00. 

[Porter]

I agree and disagree with everyone.

1) The Taxicab industry deserves to go out of business. Get them off the streets. Boohoo to the cabbies who lose their tipped jobs; perhaps they should join Lyft or Uber, neither of which I use anyway. I'll only feel at peace when all cars are self-driving.

2) I'm honored that some of my taxes and fares have been used for great projects like the Fulton Center and World Trade Center. FDR would be proud. That being said, I agree that we are being taxed too damned much, and what angers me is that so many of our taxes go to the federal government so they can spend it on overseas operations. The majority of taxes should be used at the local level.

3) Union workers cost too much and have job security to a fault. It's the actual work that gets done that matters, it's what is built or repaired that matters, not the availability of jobs to people who need an income. People serve the work demanded, not the other way around. Soon we'll get to the point where AI and robots have taken most jobs, which is when we will need universal basic income to prevent homelessness. Until that time, people need to learn to be flexible and take whatever job is available. If they are obsolesced, they should take it as a learning opportunity.

 

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:54 PM, N6 Limited said:

Didn't the MTA board agree to raise the fare/tolls every 2 years anyway?

If the fare keeps getting hiked at that speed, which is 25% faster than national inflation, as much as 2 million poor NYers will be left behind by 2029.

The financial accessibility of mass transit plays a huge role in upward mobility, which includes the homelessness crisis.

It's about high time riders stopped paying for MTA mismanaging mistakes and impoverish be damned if they even try to propose another.

(fare hikes should have happened earlier in the TA's history, otherwise we wouldn't be in this 40 billion dollar mess)

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

On 11/17/2017 at 9:06 AM, B35 via Church said:

To the first two questions..... Well as long as you have a collective of people that have the general attitude that public transportation should be free, yes....

I don't believe the base fare of 2.75 itself is the real problem (as much as ppl. like to let on anyway), as much as it is that they simply don't want to pay it, and/or don't think that 2.75 a pop is worth it.... The latter of the two I believe a lot of NY-ers fall under the category of; (fed up with) quality of service, regardless of mode.....

 

Personally, service cuts that take bad buses and lines out of service would be fairer than increasing the fare.

I've suggested route lengthening or merging in the past, but I've consistenly received blowback saying it would take longer. There's nothing wrong with a longer route, but there is something wrong with the roads they travel on.

Most suburban routes have operators travel in pairs. This makes switching easier and adds a sense of security knowing you have a colleague literally on board with you.

 

The average length of a NYCT route is about six miles, which takes an average of forty-nine minutes to complete. Top speed allowed is 25 MPH, and buses at best attain a speed of 17 MPH at best. Bus stops are placed between 90 - 210 feet of each other. less than 5% of local and limited buses have highway access despite all buses having the authority to use HOV lanes.

The average length of a Bee-Line route is fourteen miles, which takes an average of forty-five minutes to complete. Top speed allowed is 55 MPH, with buses reaching 47 MPH overall after local speed restrictions are baked in (with Downtown Yonkers being the lowest at 30 MPH). Bus stops are placed 260 - 520 feet of each other. 47% of Bee-Line buses use expressways and dedicated service roads, and all of their buses can utilize HOV lanes thanks to their passes, as well.

 

As I make the suggestion to lengthen or merge going forward, keep in mind that the road makes the bus, not the length.

[itmaybeokay]

 

On 11/16/2017 at 9:45 PM, quadcorder said:

Stop trying to argue with him... it's useless, he doesn't listen to facts. Stick to the threads he isn't ruining with his bigotry, and you'll enjoy this forum a lot more.

You're completely correct. Though - in any debate, you will have a hard time convincing your opponent, though your words have effects on the audience. 

On 11/16/2017 at 4:53 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please.  I used to respect the Times and was an avid reader, but they've become more leftists by the day with the rhetoric that they spew.  Most NY Times readers are well off anyway and have no idea what the real deal is.  The upper middle class and professional folks... We're the ones working, running departments or running businesses, so naturally we spend more money.  Time is money is this world.  The poor have it easy because they get numerous handouts.  I'd like to see some poor people that work 12+ plus days and pay their fair share of taxes the way us professionals do.  Fat chance of that happening.  When they pull their own weight then I'll consider these NY Times pieces.

 

Yawn. Yeah didn't expect you to like the times that's why I cited 4 different sources. The rest of which weren't the times.

I bet you're a flat earther. Total rejection of evidence. There are plenty of folks below or close to the poverty line working two jobs and 16 hrs a day. I know you don't get it.

Also I work 7 hour days like *tops* and make 'bout the same as you say you do so maybe you're just doing it wrong, broh. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

 

You're completely correct. Though - in any debate, you will have a hard time convincing your opponent, though your words have effects on the audience. 

 

Yawn. Yeah didn't expect you to like the times that's why I cited 4 different sources. The rest of which weren't the times.

I bet you're a flat earther. Total rejection of evidence. There are plenty of folks below or close to the poverty line working two jobs and 16 hrs a day. I know you don't get it.

Also I work 7 hour days like *tops* and make 'bout the same as you say you do so maybe you're just doing it wrong, broh. 

I guess that means you're taking out the same deductions as I do for retirement and so on before your take home? Otherwise, I don't see how you could be earning the same as I do since you don't know what my contributions are or what other perks I get.  We're in completely different fields and I run my own department with clients in different time zones, so I can't have fixed hours, so it's stupid to even compare.  It's like comparing a lawyer to a doctor... 

As for your other little "jab", I said I don't like what the Times has become.  I still read the Times regularly and have for years.  You make a lot of assumptions... 

[itmaybeokay]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I guess that means you're taking out the same deductions as I do for retirement and so on before your take home? Otherwise, I don't see how you could be earning the same as I do since you don't know what my contributions are or what other perks I get.  We're in completely different fields and I run my own department with clients in different time zones, so I can't have fixed hours, so it's stupid to even compare.

for the record you publicly posted your salary on here when I offered to bet you a whole paycheck. I'd find it but, I'm bored.