MTA's Budget crisis makes people voice stupid ideas

[Deucey]

6 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Chill, I got them in my beard and in my hair already.

The beard is fine - but that one that magically appears during a conversation and is 3/4 inch long is a mind-blower.

Get a good set of tweezers because it won't go without a fight.

[B35 via Church]

15 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I'm 40. Wait til the gray nose hairs show up.

12 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Chill, I got them in my beard and in my hair already.

Quote

B35 via Church adds:

I started getting gray hairs at like 25/26 (I'm 39).... Oof...

 

Flawless Victory

Edited November 25, 2020 by B35 via Church

[JAzumah]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

For what it's worth, by the way, you're right that the '$12b thru 2021' comment is confusing. It may be out of date.

No, it is not "out of date". He is misrepresenting the deficit amount to put pressure on Congress. He thinks he can twist their arms to get multiple years of deficit money out of them in one shot.

He has been misrepresenting the budget deficit for next year by a factor of three. He is required to balance NEXT YEAR'S budget by the end of December. He is not required to balance the next three years by the end of December. There is a huge difference between needing $12B right now and $4B right now. It is dishonest and he should stop doing that right now.

Equally dishonest is trying to pass a fare hike before you show people what you are going to cut out of the system. This new fare hike raises $79M for NYCT and $148M overall. He could have cut back service to save that money this year. He still can cut service that isn't being used and save more than that. We run transportation to carry people, not to maintain maximum employment. Instead of laying off 9,000+ people, he would have to lay off less than half of that and they could be redeployed to run bus service for certain capital projects that still have Sandy money earmarked for them (such as the Rutgers tunnel repair). You could shut the Rutgers tunnel down for 6 months and get it out of the way.

I am highly tempted to propose just such a plan, but I am not sure I have enough time to do it.

[JAzumah]

9 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Get a good set of tweezers because it won't go without a fight.

They are like strands of steel wool...personal experience.

I got my first grey hair at 27, so people shouldn't panic too much when they show up.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

42 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

No, it is not "out of date". He is misrepresenting the deficit amount to put pressure on Congress. He thinks he can twist their arms to get multiple years of deficit money out of them in one shot.

He has been misrepresenting the budget deficit for next year by a factor of three. He is required to balance NEXT YEAR'S budget by the end of December. He is not required to balance the next three years by the end of December. There is a huge difference between needing $12B right now and $4B right now. It is dishonest and he should stop doing that right now.

Equally dishonest is trying to pass a fare hike before you show people what you are going to cut out of the system. This new fare hike raises $79M for NYCT and $148M overall. He could have cut back service to save that money this year. He still can cut service that isn't being used and save more than that. We run transportation to carry people, not to maintain maximum employment. Instead of laying off 9,000+ people, he would have to lay off less than half of that and they could be redeployed to run bus service for certain capital projects that still have Sandy money earmarked for them (such as the Rutgers tunnel repair). You could shut the Rutgers tunnel down for 6 months and get it out of the way.

I am highly tempted to propose just such a plan, but I am not sure I have enough time to do it.

Exactly... You can tell when he lies... He has a terrible habit of stuttering uncontrollably when he does. lol

[MHV9218]

41 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

No, it is not "out of date". He is misrepresenting the deficit amount to put pressure on Congress. He thinks he can twist their arms to get multiple years of deficit money out of them in one shot.

He has been misrepresenting the budget deficit for next year by a factor of three. He is required to balance NEXT YEAR'S budget by the end of December. He is not required to balance the next three years by the end of December. There is a huge difference between needing $12B right now and $4B right now. It is dishonest and he should stop doing that right now.

Equally dishonest is trying to pass a fare hike before you show people what you are going to cut out of the system. This new fare hike raises $79M for NYCT and $148M overall. He could have cut back service to save that money this year. He still can cut service that isn't being used and save more than that. We run transportation to carry people, not to maintain maximum employment. Instead of laying off 9,000+ people, he would have to lay off less than half of that and they could be redeployed to run bus service for certain capital projects that still have Sandy money earmarked for them (such as the Rutgers tunnel repair). You could shut the Rutgers tunnel down for 6 months and get it out of the way.

I am highly tempted to propose just such a plan, but I am not sure I have enough time to do it.

'Misrepresenting' is a pretty heavy charge. I don't think it stands.

What the chart shows is the deficit in the coming years. There's already a 2020 deficit, add that to 2021 and 2022 and you get $12b. What he's asking for is to acquire the funding to support the system with diminished revenues so that the MTA isn't forced to go into unthinkable debt borrowing from everywhere and making debt service an even great expense in the future. You don't want debt service to take up 40% of your yearly budget – then you really will always need money!

The report also explains some of their cuts, explaining how they plan to trim cuts before a fair hike or borrowing:

"The MTA identified new cost savings in three areas: overtime, consulting contracts, and other non-personnel expenses. These actions were initially presented to the MTA Board at a special Board meeting in August 2020 and have been subsequently refined and increased. Agencies have already begun implementing these savings, which are projected to reduce expenses by $259 million in 2020, $601 million in 2021, $498 million in 2022, $466 million in 2023 and $461 million in 2024."

Some specific cuts:

"Savings in non-personnel expenses include reduced costs for electric power, fuel and labor from lower operating service levels; reduced inventory buildup; better management of non-revenue fleet; elimination of bus wi-fi and Bus Time SMS; revised vehicle inspection schedules and reductions on non-essential repairs; various procurement business expense savings; reduction of property and office equipment rentals; and the reduction in non-essential business travel, membership dues and training programs."

That's what they propose now. Then, they have cuts described if a stimulus is not passed:

"For New York City Transit Subways, annual savings is estimated to be $343 million, with a workforce impact of 2,369 positions. Subway service reductions of up to 40% may result in reduced frequency, suspension of service and/or major weekend changes. All weekend service may be on 15-minute headways. Overall, the impact of the service reductions could reduce systemwide annual revenue vehicle miles and annual trips by approximately 40 percent. The I-9 reduction in service may allow for a 35% subway fleet reduction, generating savings in maintenance, cleaning and inspection costs.

For New York City Transit Buses and MTA Bus, annual savings is estimated to be $641 million for NYCT and $190 million for MTA Bus, with a workforce impact of 4,587 positions at NYCT and 1,282 positions at MTA Bus. Proposed reductions ensure alternative service is available within a half-mile. Bus service reductions of up to 40% may result in reduced frequencies by up to 33% on bus routes that are not eliminated. Additional service reductions may affect up to 24% of all bus routes, primarily those with low ridership, high cost per boarding and proximity to nearby alternatives. For the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, combined annual savings is estimated to be $265 million, with a workforce impact of 933 positions. Proposed reductions under consideration also take into account the existence of nearby alternate service and maintaining adequate service for essential workers. Railroad service reductions of up to 50% may result in full or partial suspension of service on both weekdays and weekends. Peak service may be reduced to every 20 to 30 minutes, or hourly in certain instances. Off-peak and weekend service may be hourly, reflecting current ridership levels while maintaining sufficient service to prevent crowding."

Those are the draconian cuts that most of us really want to avoid.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

I started going grey up top at twenty, same thing with my parents. Had a college gf who tried to convince me I could pick them out one-by-one...forever. Thinking, that genie's out the bottle, but your input is appreciated...

Don't need to pluck out the grey if you just dye your hair grey like Anderson Cooper <points at head>

[JAzumah]

1 minute ago, MHV9218 said:

Misrepresenting' is a pretty heavy charge. I don't think it stands.

He is misrepresenting the MTA deficit and I am being KIND.

Here is the November financial plan: MTA November Financial Plan

Page 5 has the projected MTA 2021 deficit: $2.858B.

Page 8 has the annualized savings from the future service cuts: $1.274B.

The December meeting requires them to balance the 2021 budget. That deficit is $2.858B.

We can avoid a fare increase with a 10% cut in service. If they imposed the 40% NYCT cut/50% railroad cut in January 2021, they would save an additional $500M. They could then take the capital money and keep very important capital projects moving and use the displaced bus operators to be a dedicated shuttle force and cover them for NYCT as well as the railroads. To be clear, they can impose a 25% service cut without public hearings. They should not be raising fares at all in this environment.

 

[MHV9218]

7 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

He is misrepresenting the MTA deficit and I am being KIND.

We can avoid a fare increase with a 10% cut in service. If they imposed the 40% NYCT cut/50% railroad cut in January 2021, they would save an additional $500M. They could then take the capital money and keep very important capital projects moving and use the displaced bus operators to be a dedicated shuttle force and cover them for NYCT as well as the railroads. To be clear, they can impose a 25% service cut without public hearings. They should not be raising fares at all in this environment.
 

That is not a misrepresentation, though. You're talking about two different things. What he presenting is what needs to be done to avoid draconian cuts that would the public and the city greatly. What you're suggesting is that they perform these horrific cuts and go from there. Well, yes, if you cut half of all service – I can't even begin to express how bad that is for the city! – you can avoid the full deficit. But that should be the last resort, not the first resort. Even a 25% cut is horrific. So I think it's perfectly fair game to express the deficit comparable to ideal service and then go from there. They won't get all the money they're requesting, maybe less than half of it. Who knows. They can evaluate the cuts after that process.

I think the stakes are too high to throw the whole system away before you've tried any other option. This isn't 2010 all over again. People's lives and routines would be completely upturned by a 25%, let alone a 50% cut. The economic impact on the city would be massive.

[JAzumah]

28 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Those are the draconian cuts that most of us really want to avoid.

We may want to avoid SOME of those cuts, but if the subway is only carrying ~30% of its normal ridership, why is it running at 90-100% of service? I would like that if my fairy godmother was paying for it, but it is burning real money for service that isn't being consumed. 

You can run the existing service pattern every 15 minutes off-peak and weekends. You can run rush hours every 8-10 minutes. Publish a schedule and stick to it like commuter rail. If people know exactly when the train is coming, they will try to adjust if they can.

[JAzumah]

1 minute ago, MHV9218 said:

That is not a misrepresentation, though.

$2.858B is not $12B. It's not even close. If I billed the MTA $12B for $2.858B of work, I would go to prison.
 

2 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

o I think it's perfectly fair game to express the deficit comparable to ideal service and then go from there. They won't get all the money they're requesting, maybe less than half of it. Who knows. They can evaluate the cuts after that process.

He is expressing a deficit number over 4 years. It is misrepresenting what the MTA needs today. Do not try this at home.

The city is already shot. It is too late. When you see hotels throw in the towel in Times Square, you have entered the twilight zone. Reduce the service and keep the remaining services operated in a quality manner. There is no sense running mostly empty trains empty. 

[MHV9218]

15 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

We may want to avoid SOME of those cuts, but if the subway is only carrying ~30% of its normal ridership, why is it running at 90-100% of service? I would like that if my fairy godmother was paying for it, but it is burning real money for service that isn't being consumed. 

Somebody who knows the supplements better than I do can explain it, but I do know the original covid cuts amounted to running 75% of daytime service. It may be up to around 85% of service, I'm not sure about the exact supplement. Obviously the overnight shutdown is a chunk gone. But remember, there's a moral health hazard here – they sort of have to burn money, because if they cut service to match demand and return to loading guidelines, people will be sardine-packed in a pandemic setting. That can't happen, for a number of practical and ethical reasons. It's bad for the city, it's bad for people, it's a legal risk for the MTA, it's reckless, it's wrong...goes on. Not to mention, there was and is an imperative to move essential workers, who have been the reason the city kept functioning in the first place. These things are bigger than the budget, I think. So that's why they only cut to 75% service when they were at 25% of riders. I'm sure the accountants would have preferred 25%; it couldn't happen.

As for requesting funding to cover the next year's predicted deficit, I'm yet to be convinced why that's wrong. Businesses the world over will not begin an operation unless funding is secured. Why should the MTA have to operate on year-to-year brinksmanship and doom itself to decades of crushing debt service payments that mean there will never be any recovery, ever? 

Public transit is so important. It's the heart of the city, it's the great equalizer, it's the reason NYC works. Nobody should be toying with throwing away half the system lightly. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by MHV9218

[JAzumah]

26 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

As for requesting funding to cover the next year's predicted deficit, I'm yet to be convinced why that's wrong.

You can request it, but you shouldn't say that service cuts will happen because of it. It is not normal to have multiple years of an operating budget funded in advance.

 

[Lex]

6 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

You can request it, but you shouldn't say that service cuts will happen because of it. It is not normal to have multiple years of an operating budget funded in advance.

 

It's also not normal to have a serious health and economic threat, only to have the feds do f*ck all to address it beyond a one-time check of a paltry sum to the people and constant giveaways to corporations (leaving individual states and families to fend for themselves), but here we are.

[JAzumah]

10 minutes ago, Lex said:

It's also not normal to have a serious health and economic threat, only to have the feds do f*ck all to address it beyond a one-time check of a paltry sum to the people and constant giveaways to corporations (leaving individual states and families to fend for themselves), but here we are.

No one is handing the MTA a multi-year allocation.

I'm not going to say out loud what will get the money flowing faster than it is now, but good luck imposing more restrictions on broke people. Congress is playing with fire and I would not be surprised if they are "allowed to feel uncomfortable" for a little bit.

[Lex]

12 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

No one is handing the MTA a multi-year allocation.

Then don't fork it over all at once. It's a simple concept.

Since the $12 billion applies to the next three years, work out a deal to give $4 billion every year for the next three years.

[JAzumah]

1 minute ago, Lex said:

Since the $12 billion applies to the next three years, work out a deal to give $4 billion every year for the next three years.

If you want that to happen, you should call up Chuck Schumer and remind him he is up for re-election in 2022. That's how these things get resolved.

[checkmatechamp13]

17 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Somebody who knows the supplements better than I do can explain it, but I do know the original covid cuts amounted to running 75% of daytime service. It may be up to around 85% of service, I'm not sure about the exact supplement. Obviously the overnight shutdown is a chunk gone. But remember, there's a moral health hazard here – they sort of have to burn money, because if they cut service to match demand and return to loading guidelines, people will be sardine-packed in a pandemic setting. That can't happen, for a number of practical and ethical reasons. It's bad for the city, it's bad for people, it's a legal risk for the MTA, it's reckless, it's wrong...goes on. Not to mention, there was and is an imperative to move essential workers, who have been the reason the city kept functioning in the first place. These things are bigger than the budget, I think. So that's why they only cut to 75% service when they were at 25% of riders. I'm sure the accountants would have preferred 25%; it couldn't happen.

As for requesting funding to cover the next year's predicted deficit, I'm yet to be convinced why that's wrong. Businesses the world over will not begin an operation unless funding is secured. Why should the MTA have to operate on year-to-year brinksmanship and doom itself to decades of crushing debt service payments that mean there will never be any recovery, ever? 

Public transit is so important. It's the heart of the city, it's the great equalizer, it's the reason NYC works. Nobody should be toying with throwing away half the system lightly. 

They were still paying the extra employees for this time, though. So the savings weren't 25% of operating costs. Maybe they saved a bit of the wear-and-tear on the trains, but the amount of savings from the reduced service was minimal.

[NBTA]

This whole situation is very perplexing, but I think everyone will have a compromise in the end.

I think originally, the MTA should've asked for $6B, why? It's a compromise down the middle, the MTA can wait a year and a half before they can decide if they need the remaining 6, or maybe they may need less. They can still have cuts up to about 20%, save a few hundred million, and still have a bunch of lines running every 6/8 minutes (bus and train), and potentially still be able to have 80% or more of workers still present. 

Maybe my idea is a bit too logical for both parties to agree on, or maybe it's illogical and I'm dead wrong, but, that's what I think should happen.

[Lex]

6 hours ago, NBTA said:

This whole situation is very perplexing, but I think everyone will have a compromise in the end.

I think originally, the MTA should've asked for $6B, why? It's a compromise down the middle, the MTA can wait a year and a half before they can decide if they need the remaining 6, or maybe they may need less. They can still have cuts up to about 20%, save a few hundred million, and still have a bunch of lines running every 6/8 minutes (bus and train), and potentially still be able to have 80% or more of workers still present. 

Maybe my idea is a bit too logical for both parties to agree on, or maybe it's illogical and I'm dead wrong, but, that's what I think should happen.

That's a great way to get even less.

[Lawrence St]

I still don't understand the point of the overnight shutdown. I understand that they're cleaning the trains and stations at that point, but they couldn't reduce overnight service to run every 40 minutes to an hour? The overnight shutdown is whats making their budget problem worse since there's no paying customers and they're still running trains.

[Deucey]

31 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I still don't understand the point of the overnight shutdown. I understand that they're cleaning the trains and stations at that point, but they couldn't reduce overnight service to run every 40 minutes to an hour? The overnight shutdown is whats making their budget problem worse since there's no paying customers and they're still running trains.

It was the only way to "deal with" the homelessness problem without dealing with the homelessness problem.

[Mtatransit]

13 hours ago, NBTA said:

This whole situation is very perplexing, but I think everyone will have a compromise in the end.

I think originally, the MTA should've asked for $6B, why? It's a compromise down the middle, the MTA can wait a year and a half before they can decide if they need the remaining 6, or maybe they may need less. They can still have cuts up to about 20%, save a few hundred million, and still have a bunch of lines running every 6/8 minutes (bus and train), and potentially still be able to have 80% or more of workers still present. 

Maybe my idea is a bit too logical for both parties to agree on, or maybe it's illogical and I'm dead wrong, but, that's what I think should happen.

Usually when you start negotiations, you start with a high amount and negotiate down. If you start at 6 Billion, that's the ceiling, and most likely it will only go down from there.  

Plus, both parties won't agree on anything anyways because one party wants to give 0 to cities and states

Edited November 30, 2020 by Mtatransit

[Trainmaster5]

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

It was the only way to "deal with" the homelessness problem without dealing with the homelessness problem.

Back in my day, early-mid eighties, working on work trains 5-0 had a homeless and criminal combo problem at certain locations. Where your yacht docked we had the old South Ferry loop station on the  . We used to have a diesel stored on the inner loop and we kept it shut down and the lights extinguished. The  only opened the first 5 cars there and we and 5-0 discovered what happened in the closed section of the train, especially the last car. Besides the homeless there were live sex acts on almost every train on Friday and Saturday nights. Those performers had no shame in their games. Straight, same sex, self, nothing was taboo back then. Someone would say “ Showtime “ and we voyeurs would take our places. The Transit Police who knew about the antics down there kept pretty quiet about it and unless there was a robbery or mugging they’d let it go. I remember one female told us that graffiti was her beat but we remember her being down there as much as the guys. I think the homeless problem was different back then. Started with the “down on their luck” types and grew to becoming the mentally unstable people. Now we have the physically ill, COVID-19, and nobody wants to deal with them, period. I don’t think that there are enough people trained to handle this problem and I think the powers that be are clueless ,too. I don’t claim to know the best solution but I’m not paid to figure it out. Even when/if the present pandemic comes under control the homeless problem will persist. My take. Carry on.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On 11/25/2020 at 12:35 AM, Deucey said:

So have NYC end 's lease on the NYC Subway? 

 

If the City ends the MTA lease, then the City would become 100% legally, financially, and politically liable for the whole city transit system. Good luck getting the City Council to agree to that.