Mayor demands full accounting of $418M given to MTA for its subway rescue plan

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Mayor demands full accounting of $418M given to MTA for its subway rescue plan

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-demands-full-accounting-418m-subway-rescue-plan-article-1.3954730

 

[CenSin]

Follow those pennies; find the scumbags.

I want a deep tree diagram depicting the allocation of capital down to the employee with a description of the employees’ roles. But that might be too much to ask for?

[itmaybeokay]

Trust me I ain't singing the praises of MTA fiscal management, but his request does have merit - the state, e.g. cuomo have a nasty habit of using the MTA coffers as a general statewide contingency fund. That ought to be strictly off the table here. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Follow those pennies; find the scumbags.

I want a deep tree diagram depicting the allocation of capital down to the employee with a description of the employees’ roles. But that might be too much to ask for?

To be frank, this subway action plan has been a complete BUST. I haven't seen any improvements that warrant $836 MILLION dollars, and I agree completely with the mayor. I criticized him for not stepping up and providing funding. Now that he has, it's time for the  to step up and get the situation under control.  Still far too many delays and issues, and the system still falls apart (literally) when there's a drop of rain.  Yesterday I was in a station uptown that was just inundated with water from the little rain that we had, and this way wayyy after the rainstorm.  There were so many signal problems and other delays that knocked out several lines... So... what are they doing with this $836 million, and when can we expect to see improvements?  As de Blasio mentioned, they just blew through another billion for East Side Access and the project keeps getting pushed back further and further.  

1 minute ago, itmaybeokay said:

Trust me I ain't singing the praises of MTA fiscal management, but his request does have merit - the state, e.g. cuomo have a nasty habit of using the MTA coffers as a general statewide contingency fund. That ought to be strictly off the table here. 

Lhota is full out it, talking about he hasn't had time to read the full letter yet.  He's just covering his @ss.  He'll probably have the  spokesman say something vague.

[RR503]

17 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

To be frank, this subway action plan has been a complete BUST. I haven't seen any improvements that warrant $836 MILLION dollars, and I agree completely with the mayor. I criticized him for not stepping up and providing funding. Now that he has, it's time for the  to step up and get the situation under control.  Still far too many delays and issues, and the system still falls apart (literally) when there's a drop of rain.  Yesterday I was in a station uptown that was just inundated with water from the little rain that we had, and this way wayyy after the rainstorm.  There were so many signal problems and other delays that knocked out several lines... So... what are they doing with this $836 million, and when can we expect to see improvements?  As de Blasio mentioned, they just blew through another billion for East Side Access and the project keeps getting pushed back further and further.  

Lhota is full out it, talking about he hasn't had time to read the full letter yet.  He's just covering his @ss.  He'll probably have the  spokesman say something vague.

That’s because the SAP doesn’t address the root cause of the majority of subway delays — operating practices. I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but maintenance related delays have decreased over time. It’s the ones caused by idiotic ops rules, and then the effects that those ops rules have on incident recovery that are causing this crisis. While some SAP stuff is beneficial, spending money on all that stuff isn’t gonna do shit to the timers, flagging rules, and ops culture that have caused this massive increase in delays.

Luckily, however, it seems Byford gets this. 

[itmaybeokay]

Again - not singing the praises of the MTA here - but real improvement requires construction which requires time. 

I too would like to see a report on what the action plan set out to accomplish and what it has accomplished in, what has it been, 9 months. 

But it's not like theres a switch in the RCC that says "trains run bad/trains run good" that they just needed $400m to fix. 

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just disagreeing with the logic of "it rained the other day and there were service problems so this is a failure"

 

I'm agreeing that they should be more transparent about their accomplishments/missed targets/whats still to come. 

[itmaybeokay]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

That’s because the SAP doesn’t address the root cause of the majority of subway delays — operating practices. I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but maintenance related delays have decreased over time. It’s the ones caused by idiotic ops rules, and then the effects that those ops rules have on incident recovery that are causing this crisis. While some SAP stuff is beneficial, spending money on all that stuff isn’t gonna do shit to the timers, flagging rules, and ops culture that have caused this massive increase in delays.

Luckily, however, it seems Byford gets this. 

Actually - I amend my previous comment to add that okay there is a switch that trains run bad/trains run good - so to speak, and that's improving incident recovery. 

(I might actually make a video series about this. "Improving incident response by analyzing traffic patterns and developing turnkey service change/passenger notification packages for a given type of incident in a given segment of railroad" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue as well as "fix the trains", but if we can get people making more actionable complaints then maybeeeee)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Again - not singing the praises of the MTA here - but real improvement requires construction which requires time. 

I too would like to see a report on what the action plan set out to accomplish and what it has accomplished in, what has it been, 9 months. 

But it's not like theres a switch in the RCC that says "trains run bad/trains run good" that they just needed $400m to fix. 

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just disagreeing with the logic of "it rained the other day and there were service problems so this is a failure"

 

I'm agreeing that they should be more transparent about their accomplishments/missed targets/whats still to come. 

Stop putting words in my mouth.  What I said was, #1 I haven't seen any improvements to service since this plan was announced, and #2, that the system seems to fall apart every time it rains, which is true.  The status board was lit up yesterday... Mainly due to signal problems.  I took a screen shot in fact because I had planned on making a separate thread about why the system can't function when it rains.  It's been noticeable, not unless you're in denial of course. It was you previously that said you didn't have any problems with your commute, so maybe that still holds water, but it doesn't for many other commuters.  The SAP was supposed to address issues such as:

-Ongoing signal problems

New programs: 
Expedited signal repair, emergency water management, seat removal pilot, system-wide station cleaning

-Broken rails

New installations: 
Continuous welded rail and friction pads

-Constantly scrambling to provide adequate service due to being short on train cars

Stronger response: 
More maintenance and repair workers, on-location incident and emergency response teams, police and EMT presence

-Overcrowding

Plus: 
Longer trains, more countdown clocks, clearer service updates, anti-littering public awareness campaign

Source: http://www.mtamovingforward.com/

Other than more countdown clocks, I haven't really seen anything else change, especially longer subway cars.  Next time you go quoting me, provide accurate information.

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

That’s because the SAP doesn’t address the root cause of the majority of subway delays — operating practices. I know I’m sounding like a broken record, but maintenance related delays have decreased over time. It’s the ones caused by idiotic ops rules, and then the effects that those ops rules have on incident recovery that are causing this crisis. While some SAP stuff is beneficial, spending money on all that stuff isn’t gonna do shit to the timers, flagging rules, and ops culture that have caused this massive increase in delays.

Luckily, however, it seems Byford gets this. 

In my mind, operating practices are a separate issue. This plan was supposed to address chronic problems like delays due to signal malfunctions, which is still a big issue.  Signal malfunctions and mechanical problems are still the two biggest causes for delays.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This was the Status Board from yesterday:

 

Rail conditions and signal problems...

 

 

[RR503]

32 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

In my mind, operating practices are a separate issue. This plan was supposed to address chronic problems like delays due to signal malfunctions, which is still a big issue.  Signal malfunctions and mechanical problems are still the two biggest causes for delays.

This is maybe the most common misconception about the subway. Last month, there were 7,356 delays caused by the ROW -- signals, track, etc. Sure, that's a lot, but there were 20,651 caused by "Overcrowding/Insufficient Capacity/Other," 7,888 caused by "Planned Trackbed Work," 4,963 caused by GOs and work equipment, and 1,393 caused by employee issues. The issue with the subway simply isn't maintenance. It's operations. 

Now, those signal delays, combined with the sick customers and unruly passengers do take up time, and given the sheer insanity they cause, generally draw more ire than the strange gaps and slow runs that the ops delays cause. But those situations too are made exponentially worse by a bad operating environment. Before timers and the encouragement of timid operation, the system had flex capacity. Remember that our signal system was designed for 40tph max, and given that most lines only run 20-25 tph per track, that capability translated into space for reroutes during service interruptions. With timers cutting capacity by as much as 12-15 tph in some areas, we simply don't have that anymore. When it comes time to reroute, we're adding trains to tracks which can't handle the load, causing the conga lines and grotesque commute times that plague us.

The literal culture of the system also plays a role in this. T/Os, C/Rs and even dispatchers are so often disciplined by higher-ups that they have become wholly risk-averse to the point where they will eschew ways of keeping trains running in pursuit of career safety. We don't allow conductors on NTTs to open/shut just held doors (local recycle), instead forcing them to reopen the entire train, which just perpetuates dwell issues. We drill T/Os to operate below even posted speeds because we care more about trains moving than a functioning and accountable signal department. This kills capacity at the best of times, but during delays and reroutes, this managerially imposed cowardice and laziness makes it physically impossible to run trains in any organized fashion. 

The SAP somewhat fixes the signals, yes. But unless a holistic rethink of operating practices is undertaken, capacity will continue to decay, and delays will continue to be insufferable. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, RR503 said:

This is maybe the most common misconception about the subway. Last month, there were 7,356 delays caused by the ROW -- signals, track, etc. Sure, that's a lot, but there were 20,651 caused by "Overcrowding/Insufficient Capacity/Other," 7,888 caused by "Planned Trackbed Work," 4,963 caused by GOs and work equipment, and 1,393 caused by employee issues. The issue with the subway simply isn't maintenance. It's operations. 

Now, those signal delays, combined with the sick customers and unruly passengers do take up time, and given the sheer insanity they cause, generally draw more ire than the strange gaps and slow runs that the ops delays cause. But those situations too are made exponentially worse by a bad operating environment. Before timers and the encouragement of timid operation, the system had flex capacity. Remember that our signal system was designed for 40tph max, and given that most lines only run 20-25 tph per track, that capability translated into space for reroutes during service interruptions. With timers cutting capacity by as much as 12-15 tph in some areas, we simply don't have that anymore. When it comes time to reroute, we're adding trains to tracks which can't handle the load, causing the conga lines and grotesque commute times that plague us.

The literal culture of the system also plays a role in this. T/Os, C/Rs and even dispatchers are so often disciplined by higher-ups that they have become wholly risk-averse to the point where they will eschew ways of keeping trains running in pursuit of career safety. We don't allow conductors on NTTs to open/shut just held doors (local recycle), instead forcing them to reopen the entire train, which just perpetuates dwell issues. We drill T/Os to operate below even posted speeds because we care more about trains moving than a functioning and accountable signal department. This kills capacity at the best of times, but during delays and reroutes, this managerially imposed cowardice and laziness makes it physically impossible to run trains in any organized fashion. 

The SAP somewhat fixes the signals, yes. But unless a holistic rethink of operating practices is undertaken, capacity will continue to decay, and delays will continue to be insufferable. 

I'm assuming that your conclusions take into play the inaccurate reports that the  had about the root of the delays?

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Lhota is full out it, talking about he hasn't had time to read the full letter yet.  He's just covering his @ss.  He'll probably have the  spokesman say something vague.

I remember when this forum was all, "Lhota did such a good job during Sandy! He'll really save us this time!"

It's like, bruh, his only experience has been political director for campaigns and a deputy mayor under Giuliani way back when. It's shenanigans all the way.

[bobtehpanda]

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

This is maybe the most common misconception about the subway. Last month, there were 7,356 delays caused by the ROW -- signals, track, etc. Sure, that's a lot, but there were 20,651 caused by "Overcrowding/Insufficient Capacity/Other," 7,888 caused by "Planned Trackbed Work," 4,963 caused by GOs and work equipment, and 1,393 caused by employee issues. The issue with the subway simply isn't maintenance. It's operations. 

If the majority of your classifications are "other", perhaps it's time to take a look at your classifications.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

I remember when this forum was all, "Lhota did such a good job during Sandy! He'll really save us this time!"

It's like, bruh, his only experience has been political director for campaigns and a deputy mayor under Giuliani way back when. It's shenanigans all the way.

I think he's spread too thin, but I will say he's making a boat load of money.  NYU is involved in SO much research... I mean I can't say I fault him because he'd be leaving money on the table if he was just with the .

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Follow those pennies; find the scumbags.

I want a deep tree diagram depicting the allocation of capital down to the employee with a description of the employees’ roles. But that might be too much to ask for?

I'll go as far as to have those employees fill out labor tickets - filled out by the employee, a description of what was accomplished on every hour of every workday..... Some blue-collar factories do this very thing......

Too much talk & not nearly enough action from this agency.....

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

I remember when this forum was all, "Lhota did such a good job during Sandy! He'll really save us this time!"

It's like, bruh, his only experience has been political director for campaigns and a deputy mayor under Giuliani way back when. It's shenanigans all the way.

I wouldn't know the extent of it (on this forum), as I was too busy scoffing & smirking whenever I heard news reporters asking people their opinions of the guy & how he handled the storm & what not..... You'd have thought he was the reincarnation of jesus christ.....

I'll continue to say it.... I refuse to exalt these figureheads.

[itmaybeokay]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Stop putting words in my mouth.  What I said was, #1 I haven't seen any improvements to service since this plan was announced, and #2, that the system seems to fall apart every time it rains, which is true.  The status board was lit up yesterday... Mainly due to signal problems.  I took a screen shot in fact because I had planned on making a separate thread about why the system can't function when it rains.  It's been noticeable, not unless you're in denial of course. It was you previously that said you didn't have any problems with your commute, so maybe that still holds water, but it doesn't for many other commuters.  The SAP was supposed to address issues such as:

[...]

Next time you go quoting me, provide accurate information.

 

😁

I said I generally didn't have any problems with my commute like, two years ago. I don't say that anymore, and haven't in two years. 

I didn't say the SAP was working, or had any visible effects whatsoever - I said I wanted to see transparency on it. 

I am fully aware of the goals of the plan that you listed, I said I wanted to see transparency because, maybe there's the start of progress in these areas, maybe it's a total and complete wash. But other than operational adjustments, I don't know how much you'd see in 9 months. Which was the crux of my point. 

Now on to the matter of me putting words in your mouth. 

First of all, I didn't quote you - I paraphrased you. This is quoting you: 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

To be frank, this subway action plan has been a complete BUST. I haven't seen any improvements that warrant $836 MILLION dollars, and I agree completely with the mayor. I criticized him for not stepping up and providing funding. Now that he has, it's time for the  to step up and get the situation under control.  Still far too many delays and issues, and the system still falls apart (literally) when there's a drop of rain.  Yesterday I was in a station uptown that was just inundated with water from the little rain that we had, and this way wayyy after the rainstorm.  There were so many signal problems and other delays that knocked out several lines... So... what are they doing with this $836 million, and when can we expect to see improvements?  As de Blasio mentioned, they just blew through another billion for East Side Access and the project keeps getting pushed back further and further.  

Lhota is full out it, talking about he hasn't had time to read the full letter yet.  He's just covering his @ss.  He'll probably have the  spokesman say something vague.

To which I said: 

2 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

Again - not singing the praises of the MTA here - but real improvement requires construction which requires time. 

I too would like to see a report on what the action plan set out to accomplish and what it has accomplished in, what has it been, 9 months. 

But it's not like theres a switch in the RCC that says "trains run bad/trains run good" that they just needed $400m to fix. 

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just disagreeing with the logic of "it rained the other day and there were service problems so this is a failure"

 

I'm agreeing that they should be more transparent about their accomplishments/missed targets/whats still to come. 

Okay so, fully aware that i'm trying to nail jello to the wall here, but I'm bored so lets play the game where I semantically break down why you're wrong using only information on this very page. 

The topic sentence of your paragraph is: "To be frank, this subway action plan has been a complete BUST." 

This is the thesis statement of your argument. 

In the sentences that follow the topic sentence, most writers *develop* the thesis statement with elaboration, or information supporting the thesis. 

You present the following information in support of your thesis

1. " I haven't seen any improvements that warrant $836 MILLION dollars"
2. "Still far too many delays and issues, and the system still falls apart (literally) when there's a drop of rain.  Yesterday I was in a station uptown that was just inundated with water from the little rain that we had, and this way wayyy after the rainstorm.  There were so many signal problems and other delays that knocked out several lines..."

And you conclude with "So... what are they doing with this $836 million, and when can we expect to see improvements?" before moving on to something about east side access. 

Now, rather than quote a whole paragraph which I felt was kind of meandering, and lacking cogency - I chose to paraphrase the core point. In paraphrasing, in an attempt to break this logic down, I moved the supporting evidence first, before the thesis statement, to show that this was a logical fallacy. 

Thus, I said, "it rained the other day and there were service problems so this is a failure"

"it rained the other day and there were service problems" is an appropriate paraphrase of your second piece of supporting information. 

And "This is failure" is an appropriate paraphrase of your thesis statement. 

I left out the point about your own personal observation from my reasoning. 

Your own personal observation is prima facie invalid, since you seem to have trouble reading and comprehending basic logic here or remembering your own points when they're written on the damn page. I was trying to agree with you but I take issue with one logical point and you puff up like a pigeon. r e l a x.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I'm assuming that your conclusions take into play the inaccurate reports that the  had about the root of the delays?

Yes. Those come into play more with unknown delays, so the charged delay numbers are usually regarded as at least somewhat indicative of reality now that the unknowns have been pulled out. 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

If the majority of your classifications are "other", perhaps it's time to take a look at your classifications.

Other in that category is a misnomer — it’s short form for other capacity issues, not just anything. That category should be entitled “capacity delays.”

A little bit of gruesome trivia: the second largest delay category are those unknown cause ones. That should tell you something about where train speeds have gone relative to even a few years ago. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

😁

I said I generally didn't have any problems with my commute like, two years ago. I don't say that anymore, and haven't in two years. 

I didn't say the SAP was working, or had any visible effects whatsoever - I said I wanted to see transparency on it. 

I am fully aware of the goals of the plan that you listed, I said I wanted to see transparency because, maybe there's the start of progress in these areas, maybe it's a total and complete wash. But other than operational adjustments, I don't know how much you'd see in 9 months. Which was the crux of my point. 

Now on to the matter of me putting words in your mouth. 

First of all, I didn't quote you - I paraphrased you. This is quoting you: 

To which I said: 

Okay so, fully aware that i'm trying to nail jello to the wall here, but I'm bored so lets play the game where I semantically break down why you're wrong using only information on this very page. 

The topic sentence of your paragraph is: "To be frank, this subway action plan has been a complete BUST." 

This is the thesis statement of your argument. 

In the sentences that follow the topic sentence, most writers *develop* the thesis statement with elaboration, or information supporting the thesis. 

You present the following information in support of your thesis

1. " I haven't seen any improvements that warrant $836 MILLION dollars"
2. "Still far too many delays and issues, and the system still falls apart (literally) when there's a drop of rain.  Yesterday I was in a station uptown that was just inundated with water from the little rain that we had, and this way wayyy after the rainstorm.  There were so many signal problems and other delays that knocked out several lines..."

And you conclude with "So... what are they doing with this $836 million, and when can we expect to see improvements?" before moving on to something about east side access. 

Now, rather than quote a whole paragraph which I felt was kind of meandering, and lacking cogency - I chose to paraphrase the core point. In paraphrasing, in an attempt to break this logic down, I moved the supporting evidence first, before the thesis statement, to show that this was a logical fallacy. 

Thus, I said, "it rained the other day and there were service problems so this is a failure"

"it rained the other day and there were service problems" is an appropriate paraphrase of your second piece of supporting information. 

And "This is failure" is an appropriate paraphrase of your thesis statement. 

I left out the point about your own personal observation from my reasoning. 

Your own personal observation is prima facie invalid, since you seem to have trouble reading and comprehending basic logic here or remembering your own points when they're written on the damn page. I was trying to agree with you but I take issue with one logical point and you puff up like a pigeon. r e l a x.

It's not invalid at all. Since you want to be technical, your "paraphrase" is incorrect and I'll provide background on why. The  stated (some years ago I may add), that they had been working tirelessly to rid the system of water issues, installing pumps accordingly to pump out excess water to keep the system up and running.  Well if that's the case, why are so stations inundated with water, which has negatively impacted service?  And no, I wasn't just referring to the "other day".  Every time it rains the subway system goes to ****.  That's the reality of it, not just last Monday.  I just used Monday as an example where we saw a plethora of delays.

Since you disagree with my "thesis" do tell me how service has improved to warrant this $836 million dollars.  I'd like to hear it.  As you said, it's been what? 9 months? I would think in that time period, a few of the "short-term" items that they've noted could be accomplished. That seems quite reasonable.  

[itmaybeokay]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's not invalid at all. Since you want to be technical, your "paraphrase" is incorrect and I'll provide background on why.

As I demonstrated in excruciating detail, my paraphrase is a correct interpretation of the words you wrote - Not of all knowledge in the known universe. Ironically, you are now putting words in your own mouth. 

Furthermore, while I agree with your overall point that MTA water mitigation is terrible  The background information you list isn't relevant to your notion about the action plan being a bust, since it predates the action plan. 

 

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Since you disagree with my "thesis" do tell me how service has improved to warrant this $836 million dollars.

No, I didn't say the money was warranted, and I didn't say I disagreed with your thesis.

I specifically said I wanted to see how the money was spent. 

And I specifically said I simply disagreed with the logic you used to support your point, and that I agreed we should see how service improved, or is in the process of being improved, to warrant the money. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

35 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

As I demonstrated in excruciating detail, my paraphrase is a correct interpretation of the words you wrote - Not of all knowledge in the known universe. Ironically, you are now putting words in your own mouth. 

Furthermore, while I agree with your overall point that MTA water mitigation is terrible  The background information you list isn't relevant to your notion about the action plan being a bust, since it predates the action plan. 

 

No, I didn't say the money was warranted, and I didn't say I disagreed with your thesis.

I specifically said I wanted to see how the money was spent. 

And I specifically said I simply disagreed with the logic you used to support your point, and that I agreed we should see how service improved, or is in the process of being improved, to warrant the money. 

You were the one that said that I was claiming that the plan was a "bust" due to one rainy day. My point was that given their claims of having a mitigation system in place AND having this action plan we should be seeing improvements.  Mind you, the action plan is supposed to address water management as well, so it IS relevant to my argument.  It says so in the first bullet of the PDF file that you claimed you read and knew about already.   

Source: http://www.mtamovingforward.com/#timeline

The water mitigation is just an example of how nothing has changed. Tons of issues with signal problems, trains are still packed, etc.  You obviously don't pay attention to how the system goes to **** every time there is inclement weather, but I do, and I would think that this plan would be able to address such problems.

[Deucey]

I'm pretty sure that if one reads the actual enabling legislation that permitted the State to lease the NYC Subway and FABC/MaBSTOA from NYCTA, there's some requirement for the State to give such an accounting regularly - AND to maintain said system - or forfeit the lease (and possibly be saddled with the debt).

 

Why isn't anyone checking into that?

[itmaybeokay]

29 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You were the one that said that I was claiming that the plan was a "bust" due to one rainy day. My point was that given their claims of having a mitigation system in place AND having this action plan we should be seeing improvements. 

Yes. We should. Which is why I was advocating transparency, and have been this entire time. 

8 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I'm pretty sure that if one reads the actual enabling legislation that permitted the State to lease the NYC Subway and FABC/MaBSTOA from NYCTA, there's some requirement for the State to give such an accounting regularly - AND to maintain said system - or forfeit the lease (and possibly be saddled with the debt).

 

Why isn't anyone checking into that?

Interesting. Looking into it right now. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, itmaybeokay said:

Yes. We should. Which is why I was advocating transparency, and have been this entire time. 

Funny that you haven't said squat about your commute worsening until I called you out... Before I was running a conspiracy theory... 

[itmaybeokay]

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Funny that you haven't said squat about your commute worsening until I called you out... Before I was running a conspiracy theory... 

Yeah - I generally don't complain about my own commute unless it's something really over the top. (dont put silence in my mouth HA!)

And for the record, I conceded that you had a point about worsening subway service in Jan 2017. 

On 1/25/2017 at 6:46 PM, itmaybeokay said:

 

haha I didn't expect a personal callout. But even on seeing the thread title I thought "huh, I guess I am just lucky".

 

I would remind you that I was only saying that 20 minute intervals during rush hour were not more common than things running fairly close to intended - but that misses the point.

While on one hand there's not a lot of substance in this article - it does seem to back up the gist of what you were saying, and my core rebuttal was that there was no information to back it up - so I'll concede there's truth to the concept of things generally getting worse underground. I still rate the subway "mostly okay" but I've an outlier commute. 

I'm looking into the MTA board materials i presume this article derives from and I'll let you know if I have any insight. I know you're chomping at the bit. 

I'm done, i've moved on, lets all move on. 

With regard to the legislation you seek, Deucey - there's like 120 pages of it 😳

Searching for keywords, nothing seems to obligate the agency to any standard of maintenence, though this only speaks OF an agreement between the city (it was the NYCTA that was created by the legislation, which leases the subway from the City of New York (former Board of Transportation). 

There could such a requirement in the lease - but then again, the legislation would specifically prohibit such, it seems. 

Quote

NY CLS Pub A § 1203.1.d

d. No provision in such agreement shall purport to limit or restrict or have the effect of limiting or restricting, the power granted the authority to manage, control or direct the maintenance and operation of such transit facilities or the fares or service thereof.

Obviously I haven't read all 120 pages - and I won't. So maybe it's in there. But I'm not seeing it quickly. 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

I'm pretty sure that if one reads the actual enabling legislation that permitted the State to lease the NYC Subway and FABC/MaBSTOA from NYCTA, there's some requirement for the State to give such an accounting regularly - AND to maintain said system - or forfeit the lease (and possibly be saddled with the debt).

 

Why isn't anyone checking into that?

This Governor has, among other things, already attempted to dump Medicare, Medicaid, and CUNY onto the City's lap, and was pretty damn close to dumping all of the subway's obligations onto it as well. Albany would definitely retaliate; home rule is not actually enshrined in the State Constitution and is subject to change.

 

That being said, who knows if there are lawyers in the house?