Uptown Subway Stations Won't Lose Elevator Operators, Union Says

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Uptown Subway Stations Won't Lose Elevator Operators, Union Says

The Metropolitan Transit Authority proposed cutting around-the-clock operator positions at five uptown subway stations.

By Brendan Krisel, Patch National Staff | Oct 31, 2018 11:56 am ET

WASHINGTON HEIGHTS-INWOOD, NY — The Metropolitan Transit Authority has reversed its decision to cut full-time elevator operators at five uptown subway stations, the transit workers union announced.

Elevator operators at the 168th Street, 181st Street and 190th Street A line stations and the 181st Street and 191st Street 1 line stations were in danger of losing their jobs due to budget cuts, TWU Local 100 announced this week. The elevator workers are MTA cleaners posted on "restricted duty" due to injuries or medical conditions, the union said.

"This is a great outcome that both riders and workers wanted to see," TWU Stations Vice President Derick Echevarria said in a statement. "It wasn't an easy process but this is the right result. The presence of transit workers gives riders a sense of safety and security. We are the 'eyes and ears' and provide valuable customer service."

The MTA's current budget calls for each of the stations to have at least one elevator operator on duty 24 hours per day, according to union officials. The five stations targeted for budget cuts are all classified as "deep cavern" stations, where platforms are only accessible by elevator. At 180 feet below street level, the West 191st Street station is the deepest in Manhattan, union officials said.

New York City Transit President Andy Byford was scheduled to announce renovations to uptown subway stations during a Wednesday morning press conference with local elected officials, but the event was postponed.

Source: https://patch.com/new-york/washington-heights-inwood/uptown-subway-stations-wont-lose-elevator-operators-union-says?fbclid=IwAR3hr6IV42SXJJqUgCm8FSZN12O1YPdRrTtFr8MgahX9UfmqpEBqYST9mws

 

[RR503]

There must be better ways to spend that money... 

If I had to guess, the fact that this year is an election year for the Dear Leader has something to do with the decision...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There must be better ways to spend that money... 

If I had to guess, the fact that this year is an election year for the Dear Leader has something to do with the decision...

I just wonder about all of these cuts that are being reversed... The cuts have to come from somewhere, and they will and are, trust me.  It's just a question of where... As I noted in a previous post, word on the street is that congestion pricing will happen. It's just a matter of when and then having the lock box.  I talked about it with Senator Golden last week in his office.  Given the  's fiscal outlook, it seems to be the only way to make their budget even possible, and even then they still need funding from elsewhere as time goes on. It's insanity.  So, you raise the fares every two years, then add congestion pricing, PLUS all of the fees and surcharges they get from cell phone bills, the tolls and other bills that we all pay and all of the Uber and taxi riders out there with that surcharge, and they still won't have enough money. Smh...

[RR503]

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I just wonder about all of these cuts that are being reversed... The cuts have to come from somewhere, and they will and are, trust me.  It's just a question of where... As I noted in a previous post, word on the street is that congestion pricing will happen. It's just a matter of when and then having the lock box.  I talked about it with Senator Golden last week in his office.  Given the  's fiscal outlook, it seems to be the only way to make their budget even possible, and even then they still need funding from elsewhere as time goes on. It's insanity.  So, you raise the fares every two years, then add congestion pricing, PLUS all of the fees and surcharges they get from cell phone bills, the tolls and other bills that we all pay and all of the Uber and taxi riders out there with that surcharge, and they still won't have enough money. Smh...

Yup. As usual, the real issue with the MTA's finances (namely, that the agency wastes like the DOD), is being obfuscated by those who benefit from it -- the politicians. Because where are those donations from consultants, contractors and unions gonna come from if the MTA is holding them to a reasonable price point...

[P3F]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I just wonder about all of these cuts that are being reversed... The cuts have to come from somewhere, and they will and are, trust me.  It's just a question of where... As I noted in a previous post, word on the street is that congestion pricing will happen. It's just a matter of when and then having the lock box.  I talked about it with Senator Golden last week in his office.  Given the  's fiscal outlook, it seems to be the only way to make their budget even possible, and even then they still need funding from elsewhere as time goes on. It's insanity.  So, you raise the fares every two years, then add congestion pricing, PLUS all of the fees and surcharges they get from cell phone bills, the tolls and other bills that we all pay and all of the Uber and taxi riders out there with that surcharge, and they still won't have enough money. Smh...

And that's part of why congestion pricing is ridiculous... It'll just be another stream of money for the  to waste, paid for by adding yet another fee onto all the other ones.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

12 minutes ago, P3F said:

And that's part of why congestion pricing is ridiculous... It'll just be another stream of money for the  to waste, paid for by adding yet another fee onto all the other ones.

That and it won't solve congestion. There needs to be a cap on all of these damn Ubers. I walk to my office and I really have started paying attention. I was on Park and 59th yesterday morning and I just sat and looked at how many Ubers came through. Between Ubers, yellow taxis and trucks they easily made up the majority of the traffic, and Ubers outnumbered the yellow taxis substantially. Nothing but black escalades and black toyotas.

[R68OnBroadway]

8 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That and it won't solve congestion. There needs to be a cap on all of these damn Ubers. I walk to my office and I really have started paying attention. I was on Park and 59th yesterday morning and I just sat and looked at how many Ubers came through. Between Ubers, yellow taxis and trucks they easily made up the majority of the traffic, and Ubers outnumbered the yellow taxis substantially. Nothing but black escalades and black toyotas.

They don't seem to figure out that the Uber crisis is a result of their piss-poor management from wasting money on things like this... 90% sure Cuomo was gonna gut funding for the MTA if they didn't keep this useless positions (which the union leaders probably only want for the sake of getting more $ from dues).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, R68OnBroadway said:

They don't seem to figure out that the Uber crisis is a result of their piss-poor management from wasting money on things like this... 90% sure Cuomo was gonna gut funding for the MTA if they didn't keep this useless positions (which the union leaders probably only want for the sake of getting more $ from dues).

Well the  can't put a cap on Uber cars. That has to come from the City. The City Council passed legislation putting a temporary ban on new licenses for Ubers but the damage has been done.

[Missabassie]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That and it won't solve congestion. There needs to be a cap on all of these damn Ubers. I walk to my office and I really have started paying attention. I was on Park and 59th yesterday morning and I just sat and looked at how many Ubers came through. Between Ubers, yellow taxis and trucks they easily made up the majority of the traffic, and Ubers outnumbered the yellow taxis substantially. Nothing but black escalades and black toyotas.

I know right, its f**king disgusting.

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I just wonder about all of these cuts that are being reversed... The cuts have to come from somewhere, and they will and are, trust me.  It's just a question of where... As I noted in a previous post, word on the street is that congestion pricing will happen. It's just a matter of when and then having the lock box.  I talked about it with Senator Golden last week in his office.  Given the  's fiscal outlook, it seems to be the only way to make their budget even possible, and even then they still need funding from elsewhere as time goes on. It's insanity.  So, you raise the fares every two years, then add congestion pricing, PLUS all of the fees and surcharges they get from cell phone bills, the tolls and other bills that we all pay and all of the Uber and taxi riders out there with that surcharge, and they still won't have enough money. Smh...

My solution: food and beverage tax on prepared food - with the daytime population in Manhattan and all these folks buying lunch, even at 2¢ per dollar that's a revenue generator of billions.

Then, breakup  into one Corp for railroads and another for Bridges and NYCT. Put both into a governance structure where the borough presidents and county executives are on the boards of each corp by statute, and NYS has a non-voting board member - democratic accountability, and you eliminate the deficit that comes from doing nothing.

Then, Constitutional Amendment making NYS and municipalities provide direct funding to the local transportation authorities - so Buffalo and Albany have their dedicated stream like NYC would.

Lastly, open bids vs qualified bidders - because I'm quite sure the big two construction firms aren't the only ones that can build and repair tunnels; Kawasaki and Bombardier aren't the only orgs that can build train consists; and Nova and New Flyer aren't the only bus manufacturers.

EDIT: And one more: break up MTACC into specific construction authorities that build and design and have to stay under budget to pay off any bond obligations - with bond investors taking haircuts when things go over budget.

This is what California and the Consent Decree did with the LA MTA and BART, and now they're two thriving transportation systems (with Metro also being the LA County roadworks funder instead of CalTrans).

NY needs ACTUAL progressive reform.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

My solution: food and beverage tax on prepared food - with the daytime population in Manhattan and all these folks buying lunch, even at 2¢ per dollar that's a revenue generator of billions.

Then, breakup  into one Corp for railroads and another for Bridges and NYCT. Put both into a governance structure where the borough presidents and county executives are on the boards of each corp by statute, and NYS has a non-voting board member - democratic accountability, and you eliminate the deficit that comes from doing nothing.

Then, Constitutional Amendment making NYS and municipalities provide direct funding to the local transportation authorities - so Buffalo and Albany have their dedicated stream like NYC would.

Lastly, open bids vs qualified bidders - because I'm quite sure the big two construction firms aren't the only ones that can build and repair tunnels; Kawasaki and Bombardier aren't the only orgs that can build train consists; and Nova and New Flyer aren't the only bus manufacturers.

EDIT: And one more: break up MTACC into specific construction authorities that build and design and have to stay under budget to pay off any bond obligations - with bond investors taking haircuts when things go over budget.

This is what California and the Consent Decree did with the LA MTA and BART, and now they're two thriving transportation systems (with Metro also being the LA County roadworks funder instead of CalTrans).

NY needs ACTUAL progressive reform.

See this is a Democrat in action.... TAX TAX TAX... We are taxed to death in this City. Fewer people are eating out at restaurants. A tax is the last thing we need. I rarely eat out now for lunch, not at sit-down places, in part because of the tourists, and I usually cook or get something from Whole Foods and bring it on the way to my office. Opening up competition I agree with. More competition, lower prices... 

[Deucey]

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

See this is a Democrat in action.... TAX TAX TAX... We are taxed to death in this City. Fewer people are eating out at restaurants. A tax is the last thing we need. I rarely eat out now for lunch, not at sit-down places, in part because of the tourists, and I usually cook or get something from Whole Foods and bring it on the way to my office. Opening up competition I agree with with. More competition, lower prices... 

I'm just looking at stable revenue streams that are more equitable than holding folks geographically on Long Island hostage because they use a car to go elsewhere - like us Staten Islanders are with PA on the west and south and TBTA on the east.

And while I'm a progressive, I hate tax more than conservatives (since I grew up in republicanville Northern California). But I also see the fact that starving public systems of adequate taxation is a major factor in our crumbling infrastructure - with bureaucratic inertia, ineptitude and largesse as the overwhelming factor. But watching city after city in the West pass these narrow 1/2¢ tax measures - with a time limit for assessments, and seeing how infrastructure improved (LA with it's rail, rapid and BRT expansions along with Carpool lanes reducing backups on the Harbor, 405 and Ventura Freeways), Sacramento getting Light Rail expanded to my end of the county and South Sacramento, San Diego building out the trolley, Portland's MAX LRT), these things can work and benefit more.

The problem in NY and the Northeast is that when everywhere else went with progressive localism and direct democracy, the Tammany Hall big boss system got further entrenched. And having a big boss leads to more patronage and, ultimately, insanely high taxes because patrons control the purse strings and hide the money.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I'm just looking at stable revenue streams that are more equitable than holding folks geographically on Long Island hostage because they use a car to go elsewhere - like us Staten Islanders are with PA on the west and south and TBTA on the east.

And while I'm a progressive, I hate tax more than conservatives (since I grew up in republicanville Northern California). But I also see the fact that starving public systems of adequate taxation is a major factor in our crumbling infrastructure - with bureaucratic inertia, ineptitude and largesse as the overwhelming factor. But watching city after city in the West pass these narrow 1/2¢ tax measures - with a time limit for assessments, and seeing how infrastructure improved (LA with it's rail, rapid and BRT expansions along with Carpool lanes reducing backups on the Harbor, 405 and Ventura Freeways), Sacramento getting Light Rail expanded to my end of the county and South Sacramento, San Diego building out the trolley, Portland's MAX LRT), these things can work and benefit more.

The problem in NY and the Northeast is that when everywhere else went with progressive localism and direct democracy, the Tammany Hall big boss system got further entrenched. And having a big boss leads to more patronage and, ultimately, insanely high taxes because patrons control the purse strings and hide the money.

Taxation isn’t a problem here. The problem is elected officials STEALING tax dollars for transit and using it for other things, hence the need for a lock box.

[Deucey]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Taxation isn’t a problem here. The problem is elected officials STEALING tax dollars for transit and using it for other things, hence the need for a lock box.

That's where if you break up the boss system, it's harder to do.

How hard would it be if you had 5 borough presidents on the  board reviewing every contract and casting a public vote - knowing that a) they sign off on a contract with inflated costs they're voted out and/or prosecuted and b) that to get it to work, all 5 have to be corrupted?

There's always one person on a committee that will not buck to pressure. And get rid of the governor's (or mayor's) ability to order changes by eliminating the ability to appoint, you boost accountability.

Then if you make these tax streams narrow in scope - California and Oregon's sales tax for transit measures prohibit releasing funds for anything but transit projects and improvements (meaning they can't be used to make up for budget shortfalls since any bonds issued tied to that revenue stream have an automatic repayment requirement the minute that happens), you enact the lockbox twice.

That's the problem here with the commuter and communication tax - it's general purpose money versus specific purpose. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 hours ago, Deucey said:

That's where if you break up the boss system, it's harder to do.

How hard would it be if you had 5 borough presidents on the  board reviewing every contract and casting a public vote - knowing that a) they sign off on a contract with inflated costs they're voted out and/or prosecuted and b) that to get it to work, all 5 have to be corrupted?

There's always one person on a committee that will not buck to pressure. And get rid of the governor's (or mayor's) ability to order changes by eliminating the ability to appoint, you boost accountability.

Then if you make these tax streams narrow in scope - California and Oregon's sales tax for transit measures prohibit releasing funds for anything but transit projects and improvements (meaning they can't be used to make up for budget shortfalls since any bonds issued tied to that revenue stream have an automatic repayment requirement the minute that happens), you enact the lockbox twice.

That's the problem here with the commuter and communication tax - it's general purpose money versus specific purpose. 

Ha!!! You can always dream big. I believe the Mayor gets to appoint three  Board members, which is a drop in the bucket when we talk about City representation at the table, and then you have to factor in the Mayor’s own agenda. The guy rides around in a gas guzzling SUV and tells people to avoid getting around above ground, yet you never see him on a subway aside from a photo op. Of course a part of me strongly believes that this congestion is being fabricated to then push the agenda of a Millionaire’s tax or congestion pricing, but that’s another topic entirely. Nevertheless, when you continuously narrow streets sticking in bike lanes that in some cases are not used, you obviously create more congestion. That along with the idiotic syncing of the traffic lights and the lowering of the speed limit.

[CenSin]

15 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Nevertheless, when you continuously narrow streets sticking in bike lanes that in some cases are not used, you obviously create more congestion. That along with the idiotic syncing of the traffic lights and the lowering of the speed limit.

Bike lanes are pretty well-used. I think us bikers have a problem with drivers and pedestrians using them too.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, CenSin said:

Bike lanes are pretty well-used. I think us bikers have a problem with drivers and pedestrians using them too.

That depends. They aren't well used everywhere, that much I do know, and where they aren't being used, they should be removed especially when they cause excessive congestion.

[QM1to6Ave]

19 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That depends. They aren't well used everywhere, that much I do know, and where they aren't being used, they should be removed especially when they cause excessive congestion.

The ones in Queens near me certainly are underutilized and just slow down traffic...hmmm...it's almost as if de Blasio wanted to add in a sneaky new way to enforce Vision Zero  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, QM1to6Ave said:

The ones in Queens near me certainly are underutilized and just slow down traffic...hmmm...it's almost as if de Blasio wanted to add in a sneaky new way to enforce Vision Zero  

Tell me about it. There are some streets where they narrowed the road down to one way each way, so if a car double parks, forget it. An insane amount of congestion to go a few blocks.  Meanwhile the bike lanes are totally clear.  They actually installed them in one area, then ripped them out and repaved the whole street again. A waste of money... 

[bobtehpanda]

On 10/31/2018 at 3:25 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That and it won't solve congestion. There needs to be a cap on all of these damn Ubers. I walk to my office and I really have started paying attention. I was on Park and 59th yesterday morning and I just sat and looked at how many Ubers came through. Between Ubers, yellow taxis and trucks they easily made up the majority of the traffic, and Ubers outnumbered the yellow taxis substantially. Nothing but black escalades and black toyotas.

If it costs more to drive in then less people will pay. And some of those tractor trailers trying to toll dodge on Canal Street will hopefully go somewhere else.

Ubers, they need to charge a fee on a destination or origin in the zone, and double charge if both are in. Didn't they just put in a fee on Ubers?

21 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That depends. They aren't well used everywhere, that much I do know, and where they aren't being used, they should be removed especially when they cause excessive congestion.

 

1 hour ago, QM1to6Ave said:

The ones in Queens near me certainly are underutilized and just slow down traffic...hmmm...it's almost as if de Blasio wanted to add in a sneaky new way to enforce Vision Zero  

The problem with the Queens network, as someone who rode bikes all the time in Queens, is that DOT (especially under BdB) squeezes them in wherever they can without thinking about making it into a usable network the way Manhattan or parts of Brooklyn have. There's a lot of critical gaps missing; try crossing the GCP/Van Wyck/Corona Park in a bicycle, or try crossing the Cross Island or Clearview in one. All your options are super unsafe.

[LTA1992]

On 11/1/2018 at 8:19 PM, CenSin said:

Bike lanes are pretty well-used. I think us bikers have a problem with drivers and pedestrians using them too.

I'm seriously about to get a GoPro so I can show the struggle.

How selfish people are to think that bikes are the problem when we have to navigate roads not designed for us or our safety. And in a country that disrespects anything that isn't the automobile.

[WestFarms36]

On 11/1/2018 at 4:46 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Ha!!! You can always dream big. I believe the Mayor gets to appoint three  Board members, which is a drop in the bucket when we talk about City representation at the table, and then you have to factor in the Mayor’s own agenda. The guy rides around in a gas guzzling SUV and tells people to avoid getting around above ground, yet you never see him on a subway aside from a photo op. Of course a part of me strongly believes that this congestion is being fabricated to then push the agenda of a Millionaire’s tax or congestion pricing, but that’s another topic entirely. Nevertheless, when you continuously narrow streets sticking in bike lanes that in some cases are not used, you obviously create more congestion. That along with the idiotic syncing of the traffic lights and the lowering of the speed limit.

The Mayor shows his despise for the Transit system through the balloon heads that he appoints to the board, whenever I hear the city's representatives talking their point it just sounds like an opera where they all try to get to the same ideology that the mayor has... Just think about it.