Submitted by King-of-New-York t3_11sp63y in nyc
Comments
koreamax t1_jcfkhnn wrote
For real. The ferry is great and it seems like they don't want us to take it
King-of-New-York OP t1_jcfz8ks wrote
Still no ferry to LGA/Terminal A.
shinytwistybouncy t1_jcifbbe wrote
That would be ingenious.
tonka737 t1_jcgwwlr wrote
Wasn't a fan of the toll hike either.
Silo-Joe t1_jcf1zks wrote
Really enforcing the EZPass tolls would help but they never really do that. Taking the free, orange EZPass tags from friends and family would also help.
misterferguson t1_jcfmkso wrote
It’s funny how this sub is 100% behind enforcing tolls on the roads, but 100% against enforcing fares in the subway.
For the record, I support enforcing both, but there seems to be this meme on here that people who hop the turnstile are too poor to afford to the fare (despite the fair fares program and the fact that the NYC subway is very cheap relative to all other systems of its size) and fare beaters on the roads are just opportunists. The truth is that both groups are just selfish opportunists and should be treated as such.
casanovaelrey t1_jchdcf6 wrote
Cheap where? I can name 5 subway systems that are of its size, cleaner, safer, and cheaper. They get $20 Billion a year. Shit is ridiculous. Get rid of the endless commissions and unnecessary corruption.
jonnycash11 t1_jchdvzz wrote
Name them, I’m genuinely curious
casanovaelrey t1_jchhnxa wrote
Off the top from having lived in or frequently visited these places: Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, and Hong Kong. Moving similar numbers of people, in similar cityscapes, with similar usage rates or more, and a significantly lower cost with a much cleaner, safer, and well ran system. I lived in Shanghai for 5 years and they managed to build out and add 5 lines within that time. Obviously they've been in development for longer than a year per line but it's not $10 billion+ and 20 years damn near like the Q train that's going 30 blocks max.
jonnycash11 t1_jchmo4k wrote
Shanghai and Hong Kong do not have flat fares, they have fare zones. Shanghai’s is probably cheaper on average than New York’s, but I doubt if Hong Kong’s is.
Shanghai receives huge subsidies to operate and both HK’s and SH’s are not open 24/7.
casanovaelrey t1_jckjvrw wrote
Sooooooo being that I've lived in all three places, I can speak from a place of actual knowledge and not blind loyalty to an underperforming city. This isn't what I think or feel or hope to be true. This is what I've actually lived.
> Shanghai and Hong Kong do not have flat fares, they have fare zones. Shanghai’s is probably cheaper on average than New York’s, but I doubt if Hong Kong’s is.
Distance based fare is a knock on the MTA and not Shanghai Metro. The Shanghai Metro system is larger in distance than the MTA system and the most you'd pay is $2.18 for a trip. That's ONLY if you're going from the extreme ends on the system, which is generally unlikely because most destinations you'd go to are in the metro area, versus the outskirts and villages of the Shanghai Region. A short trip within the 4 Train circle will cost you about $0.45. An average one, probably $0.80 - $1.00. Add that to the fact that you do not have to leave the system to access any train within the network.
HK Metro is also cheaper than the MTA, in exchange for for much better service. Mind you, the MTA is not even the busiest service in the world. It's not even in the top 5.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/118931/10-busiest-metro-systems/
> Shanghai receives huge subsidies to operate and both HK’s and SH’s are not open 24/7.
As far as subsidies, the MTA is also being subsidized. To the tune of nearly $8 Billion annually. As is the nature of all public infrastructure. It's not supposed to be wholly self sufficient. That would defeat its purpose of being for the general public. So other metro systems being "subsidized" is another weak argument. We're just really bad. And we shouldn't be. Not with the amount of money we spend.
That being said, the MTA is wildly inefficient, overpriced, and subpar. It's embarrassing.
jonnycash11 t1_jcktdkx wrote
Congrats, I’ve lived in all three places too. 给你鼓个掌
casanovaelrey t1_jckuzma wrote
> Congrats, I’ve lived in all three places too. 给你鼓个掌
恭喜你。Then I question your previous statements because it should have been obvious to you then. While Shanghai CAN BE cheaper than NYC, is also a pretty high cost of living city. Hong Kong on the other hand, is extremely expensive and often surpasses NYC in COL. Both places have significantly better metro systems and have about the same number (or more) in terms of usage. Point being that for the resources that the MTA has at it's disposal, it does a really bad job.
jonnycash11 t1_jckwb3y wrote
Do you need to buy a house in NYC to have a 户口 and access to the pubic services? That’s what subsidizes public transport.
If the income to housing cost ratio was as skewed in NYC as it is in Shanghai, we could hire migrant workers to build and repair tunnels without OT, probably it would be close.
My qualifying my earlier statement is not the same as saying the MTA is great. Different inputs produce different results.
casanovaelrey t1_jcl1q1f wrote
> Do you need to buy a house in NYC to have a 户口 and access to the pubic services? That’s what subsidizes public transport.
I didn't have a hukou (户口本 or household registration for those who don't know what we're talking about) or property and I had access to all public services. Granted I had a work visa so I'm probably splitting hairs here lol, but that isn't the main fundraising method for the metro system. It's taxes, just like here. And government investment. So it's a moot point, insofar as mentioning hukous.
> If the income to housing cost ratio was as skewed in NYC as it is in Shanghai, we could hire migrant workers to build and repair tunnels without OT, probably it would be close.
I'm not sure if you know how much housing costs in NYC but it's skewed pretty badly. Affordability wise, it doesn't cost $20 Billion annually to have half of the trains at any given time running on a modified route or schedule and to have inconsistent service. Shanghai as a city is pretty comparable to NYC. Maybe not a direct comparison, as you already know, in terms of COL, but relatively it's very comparable.
>My qualifying my earlier statement is not the same as saying the MTA is great. Different inputs produce different results.
And my point is that in similar sizes economies, in terms of wealth generated, with similar sizes population and ridership rates, with similar funding sources, the MTA is doing abysmally in comparison.
jonnycash11 t1_jcl74i7 wrote
Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China.
Buying a home is what gets you a hukou in a big city. The taxes on real estate are what fund public works.
Property tax is not existent because, with very few exceptions, the government owns all of the land. Income tax is negligible in China.
…
And you keep missing the point where I keep saying that because I am elaborating on why the Shanghai system costs less, it does not mean I am praising the MTA.
casanovaelrey t1_jcldl6r wrote
>Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China.
I lived there for 5 years. I know exactly what a hukou is. It's a registeration permit that allows you to live in a specific area, usually related the 1st tier cities. And you can't just buy a property in Shanghai to get a hukou.
"Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China."
There are many factors that go into it. Your marital status, how many years you've paid into the system, possession of a residence permit for the specific area, and a bunch of other requirements.
>Buying a home is what gets you a hukou in a big city.
"Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China."
Since that is NOT how you get a hukou. I explained some of the things you would need to buy property. Having a hokou allows you to buy property, not the other way around.
These are the requirements for getting a hukou:
Those possessing qualified talent, such as having established a startup, owning patents, founder of or senior management in a leading company;
Those who earned at least a bachelor’s degree overseas;
Those who have newly graduated from university;
Those who are spouses/children/parents of Shanghai-hukou residents;
Those who hold a Shanghai residence permit and have contributed to social insurance in the city for at least seven years.
Not once do I see anything about owning property. You get the privilege of owning property by having a hukou.
So, "Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China."
>Property tax is not existent because, with very few exceptions, the government owns all of the land. Income tax is negligible in China.
So this is a Hong Kong paper talking about Mainland China but I'll use it anyways since it's easier to do that than try to get one from behind the firewall in English BUT it is CLEARLY discussing property taxes. So your statement isn't true.
"Gosh, you have little understanding of how things work in China."
That being said, public funding by the Shanghai government and the State of NY is derived from pubic funds, which come from gasp taxes. Either way, both in relative numbers and gross numbers, they're spending similar amounts on public transportation. Only one is doing what it should. The other isn't. It would seem to me that were should figure out how they're doing it, adapt it to our situation, get these mafia clowns and grifters off of public welfare (attaching themselves to public projects) and make the system what it should be.
>And you keep missing the point where I keep saying that because I am elaborating on why the Shanghai system costs less, it does not mean I am praising the MTA.
I do NOT miss the point. You're trying to insinuate that the MTA is doing the best that they can with what they have. That's patently false. Now I don't expect $.50 fares either. That's wild and unrealistic. But for $2.75, we should be getting so much more than what we're getting.
jonnycash11 t1_jclr4bf wrote
I lived in China for much longer than that, have a degree from a Chinese university (taught in Chinese) and ran a small business for several years.
In any case, a hukou is a household registration system created after the Chinese Civil War to prevent farmers from leaving the countryside and flooding into cities. Everyone has one.
You can work and rent in other areas, but you are denied access to certain municipal services, like local health insurance, retirement funds, and high schools for your children if you live in a different area. Working in that area will give you certain benefits, but less than a bonafide resident You also cannot get married in a different city unless you are working there.
That being said, local governments raise money for public works through land sales and taxes on real estate.
casanovaelrey t1_jclsg1x wrote
I know the history of why it was created (or reintroduced). I know all of the reasons why you need one, how to get one, what is for, etc. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about a hukou being given for purchasing property.
We're digressing from the point though. The point being that with similar amounts of money, ridership, and size, Shanghai has a far superior metro system for a plethora of reasons. Even if we were to adjust spending to match cost of living, instead of looking at gross numbers, the MTA severely underperforms. Almost at a criminal level, if you ask me
jonnycash11 t1_jcm980w wrote
So, you’re acknowledging that I was correct about municipal revenue. Great we agree then.
We also agree that the MTA could be better.
As for the hukou, you’re either being intentionalIy pedantic or are having trouble following what I said.
Who told you there were other ways to change your household registration without buying property in a new city? Maybe if you’re a party member or doing research in a big city, yes, but otherwise that’s about the only way to do it. You can’t change household registration unless you have a new household!
payeco t1_jcmmkdy wrote
Don’t forget the corporate parent of the MTR has massive real estate holdings in HK which they use to fund operations and expansions. A bit hyperbolic but it would be like if the state gave the MTA Hudson Yards before it was built and told them profits from building there must go towards the subway.
[deleted] t1_jcvwsmi wrote
[deleted]
misterferguson t1_jchjqum wrote
>Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, and Hong Kong
You are vastly oversimplifying this. Tokyo, for example has less than half as many stations as NYC. Taipei even fewer stations than Tokyo. Hong Kong even fewer.
I'll agree that they're cleaner and more efficient, but our subway system is simply way bigger than pretty much every single other subway system.
Oh yeah, it's also open 24/7. The ones you mentioned aren't.
casanovaelrey t1_jchuhgd wrote
Shanghai has the largest network in the world. NYC is more compact so it has more stations, sure but that doesn't take away from the fact that Tokyo is the largest city in the planet by population. Shanghai, was a region has nearly 25 million people but the city center is very densely packed. Taipei (Greater Taipei) and Seoul are both 7M and 10M respectively. NYC is about 8M (add another million in terms of tourists and commuters so 9M). Hong Kong 7.4M and far more densely packed than NYC in Kowloon and HKG Island. So as I've stated, population density and ridership is there.
Actually out of the top 10 busiest systems, MTA is 7th in the world. There's no reason for the gross inefficiency, TERRIBLE maintenance, trash, security issues, reliability, etc. No other system I can think of regularly has you ride in an opposite direction, switch trains, catch a bus, and take a shuttle, just to reach a station that was on the original train's route anyways.
The MTA is open 24/7, yes but the ridership is so low that they should be able to use that time to fix the issues they're having. Also systems like HK Metro close for 5 hours at night, run with greater frequency, move similar amounts of people at a lower cost. And HK often comes in as the most expensive city in the world for real estate. So it's not like it's some backwater town with a low cost of living.
The issue is poor governance, corruption, and apologists who try and justify a rotten system.
iv2892 t1_jci0mpa wrote
Yeah, nyc subways don’t look as nice and neat as Tokyos or Seoul. But is good enough , they can make some improvements . But as far as your average big city goes is pretty damn good. MTA just needs to make more effort at avoiding delays .
Brickblastchest t1_jcoyr8e wrote
Tokyo has 882 rail and subway stations to the MTAs 472.
misterferguson t1_jcp0qq6 wrote
You can’t cite those numbers and leave out LIRR, Metro North and NJ Transit, which all serve NYC in addition to the NYC subway.
Brickblastchest t1_jcp5o5b wrote
accounting for those + SIR it would then be 773 stations vs 882.
movingtobay2019 t1_jcj2hlm wrote
Seoul’s subway system is way bigger than NYCs. And NYC’s subway really shouldn’t be 24/7. Shit here closes much earlier than other international cities.
gregbeans t1_jchia7e wrote
A lot of that is because of the differences in the cultures.
Most Asian cultures are much cleaner and respectful of public places than Americans are, especially NYC Americans
casanovaelrey t1_jchj9xi wrote
My brother. You have NOT lived in China is you think that's the case. I'm convinced that in certain areas, they've perfected the art of littering. Still a great country though. Mention Japan and Taiwan, you might have an argument though. But it's not just culture, in terms of cleanliness. And that's still a weak excuse, on the part of our government, to not handle business. We lie about how we're the "greatest city in the world" and I was embarrassed to live abroad and see that we aren't even the greatest city amongst the top economic powers. NYC is looked at as TImes Square, Billionaire's Row, and Wall Street and we're supposed to pretend like that success and glamor is everyone's. It's NOT. We can do so much better.
gregbeans t1_jchk08p wrote
I was referring to Tokyo and Seoul, can’t speak for china so I believe you. But I stand by NYC people treating public places like shit, sounds like a lot of Chinese do too.
I also agree that the government is corrupt and incompetent, but what can we do about that?
casanovaelrey t1_jchkyb2 wrote
Yeah Tokyo is a different level of meticulous lol. Seoul is great too. Other places outside of Seoul though can be a little different.
Naw you're not wrong though. We treat the city like shit but it's like the chicken and the egg. Do we treat it like shit because of the government or is the government ineffective because we treat it like shit?
Firstly start demanding accountability. I don't mean a couple of policy wonks on Reddit or the couple of tech millennials who go to the meetings. I mean as a city vote these clowns out then go after the governorship. The amount of naked corruption is staggering.
jonnycash11 t1_jchmrmn wrote
Depends on the neighborhood. It’s clean where I live.
iv2892 t1_jci0tug wrote
That’s what I say , nyc gets a bad rep as a dirty city . But there are many neighborhoods where people would get surprised at how clean it is
myassholealt t1_jci0ju0 wrote
In a city full of transplants, calling out 'NYC Americans' is like saying American Americans. Look at the state "Americans" leave camping grounds and national parks. It's an American culture thing. We don't respect anyone but ourselves. And cleaning up is inconvenient so we don't.
ajuicebar t1_jci153y wrote
Every subway not named NYC Subway is cleaner than NYC Subway
casanovaelrey t1_jckp0u6 wrote
LMFAO sadly this is mostly true.
HashtagDadWatts t1_jcfwevz wrote
It's funny how you think this sub (or any sub) is a monolith with a single viewpoint.
misterferguson t1_jcfwrk6 wrote
Care to actually engage with my point or are you just going to be pedantic?
HashtagDadWatts t1_jcg3fcu wrote
Your point is misguided, because you're almost certainly referring to different people with different viewpoints.
AnotherUselessPoster t1_jcflkvr wrote
Those tolled bridges have paid for themselves several times over. I'm sure there were statements when some of them were built that the tolls would be eliminated once they were, but the MTA, being the financial black hole it is, decided to keep the tolls.
ArcticBlaze09 t1_jcf876y wrote
How are EZ pass tolls related to the MTA? If a person is paying a bridge or tunnel toll that would mean they are not using the MTA.
rupertalderson t1_jcf9y7t wrote
The MTA operates 7 bridges (Whitestone, Throgs Neck, RFK/Triborough, Verrazano, Henry Hudson, Cross Bay, and Marine Parkway) and 2 tunnels (Battery and Midtown), all of which allow for toll payment with EZPass. So how is it unrelated? It is quite relevant, they make quite a bit of money off bridges & tunnels (nearly $2 billion annually).
ArcticBlaze09 t1_jcffchr wrote
I see. I don’t see the correlation between bridge/ tunnel tolls and fare hikes for the subway.
mew5175_TheSecond t1_jcffzam wrote
The MTA needs money to fund the subways. Part of the way the MTA earns money is from tolls. If they are able to bring in more money from tolls, they do not need to resort to fare hikes to bring in more money. Hope that clears it up.
You are correct that more people using cars does not encourage subway use. However, car users still generate revenue for the MTA.
boeing77X t1_jcfh2kk wrote
The amount of fake plate toll evasion is insane. They could easily recover/fine/impound vehicles if they want to. That’d be more than the extra revenue from any fare hikes
Arleare13 t1_jcfi6mk wrote
Because both the subways and the bridges/tunnels are operated by MTA, they can use money from one for the other. More toll payments might mean less of a need to raise subway fares.
TheNormalAlternative t1_jcfivgh wrote
The MTA runs the bridges, tunnels and mass transit systems [entirely within NY state]. They all are paid for out of the same coffers. The MTA can use its money for whichever project they want. It's all the same pockets.
rupertalderson t1_jcg063e wrote
For the sake of completeness:
The MTA operated 9 bridges & tunnels in total. Some tolled bridges are operated by the Port Authority (GWB, Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Goethals, Bayonne, Outerbridge) or the NYS DOT. All NYC DOT crossings are free, as are all (I think) NYS DOT bridges.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcf8yad wrote
MTA also controls most bridges and tunnels.
Main_Photo1086 t1_jcf8xen wrote
The MTA runs bridges too.
Fabulous_Leg3466 t1_jcfh10c wrote
Maybe when the fucking guy that owns msg pays his fucking property tax the mta can take part of the money. The answer to literally every problem in this city is to tax the rich. For fucking fucks sake.
MrNewking t1_jcga9yo wrote
But what about trickle down economics? If the rich earn more money and are taxed less, im sure it'll trickle down to the rest of us, right?
heresmyusername t1_jcgwsit wrote
Hope Reagan's grave is being eternally pissed on (and worse) as we continue to grapple with the irreparably broken system that began as a direct result of his presidency.
Fabulous_Leg3466 t1_jcgj5jl wrote
Maybe we just collectively pull all our teeth out and wait for the tooth fairy to leave us some money under our pillows
Unlucky_Lawfulness51 t1_jcgtjmo wrote
Yes you're right, Dolan should pay taxes but that won't resolve this billion dollar issue. $2.75 is a very good deal to get across the city.
czapatka t1_jchdybc wrote
Have they ever considered a distance-based fare like DC, London or Paris? Even BART is distance-based and it’s $4 to get from Oakland to SF, and they have discounted rides for as little as $1.50 for those who need it with their START program.
The MTA clearly needs to raise their fares while also figuring out a way to subsidize them for individuals or families who can’t afford it.
BurningBeechbone t1_jchtjaf wrote
A distance-based fair is a direct tax on the poor and a discount to the rich. Most New Yorkers work in Manhattan, only the wealthiest live near work.
czapatka t1_jcib2el wrote
That point isn’t lost on me. I was just asking if there was ever a discussion around it, since the MTA is clearly in need of revenue.
If we can’t raise fares or introduce another fare structure, clearly the MTA is in a stalemate with themselves.
Unlucky_Lawfulness51 t1_jcheaqe wrote
That definitely won't work politically.
akmalhot t1_jcicxs2 wrote
Yes the 30 million dollars will solve all the mta corruption
Fabulous_Leg3466 t1_jcint3w wrote
I mean 30 million is nothing to shake a stick at and at least that will be yearly
akmalhot t1_jciosm7 wrote
Mta wasts that much in 12 hrs. Why not focus on a real solution .like, reigning their runaway costs and corruption
King-of-New-York OP t1_jcesxws wrote
“New York state legislators are telling the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that they will not support fare hikes for riders.
The MTA says it is dealing with fiscal issues after running out of over $15 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers are searching for other ways to close the agency's financial gaps.”
——- LoL, sure they are.
mediocre_at_most t1_jcgcnjp wrote
I'd love to see another look into the MTA, preferably by multiple outside agencies.
It's frightening how they seem to keep losing money and how our subways cost multiple times more to build than they do in Europe.
fldsmdfrv2 t1_jciqu3o wrote
MTA can never have a surplus, if they did they wouldn't get additional funds every year. It doesn't matter if they waste the funds on water bottles or parties, they have to deplete it all. It's the reason why they give such lavish contracts to Small Businesses and why they have hundreds of surveyors. It's Rinse and Repeat, milk the tax base. BTW Subways, Buses, Transit is all funded by the public, then the MTA forces you, the rider, to pay for using mass transit. Double dip much?
k1lk1 t1_jcf4c7c wrote
The MTA needs money. Everyone agrees on that. So where's it going to come from? Fares? Congestion pricing? Toll enforcement? Magically from Uncle Joe? It seems like there will have to be some grand bargain here where all of the pro/against special interest groups negotiate a settlement and cough up something.
Also, obligatory: it's silly that Albany gets to vote on the MTA, New York is a mismanaged meme state.
chug84 t1_jcfed3o wrote
>The MTA needs money.
They need to stop mismanaging the money they already have.
k1lk1 t1_jcfjs5v wrote
That's fine, but it's also true of basically every agency in the city. So until we have a plan to fix the way we manage government in general, we need to keep things moving. Hint, fixing all of the waste will include, but not be limited to, renegotiating union contracts all over the city.
chug84 t1_jcfphbf wrote
Renegotiating what exactly with the unions?
misterferguson t1_jcfqso8 wrote
>Renegotiating what exactly with the unions?
If you even have to ask this question then you have no business accusing the MTA of mismanaging its money.
Who do you think designed the MTA's ridiculous overtime policies?
Confident-Area-6946 t1_jchapyi wrote
The MTA is the problem… how do people not get that it is shockingly obvious embezzlement.
chug84 t1_jcftwdc wrote
Overtime comes from upper management, not the workers. Apparently you're the one that has no business discussing how the MTA allocates its funds.
misterferguson t1_jcfu27o wrote
They’re all in the union buddy.
MrNewking t1_jcgal51 wrote
Upper management is specifically not in the union. At least not in the TWU.
BonesJustice t1_jchwgwe wrote
Upper management (in any organization) is generally exempt from most protections enshrined in the NLRA, which is the lynchpin of collective bargaining rights in the USA.
chug84 t1_jcfvo88 wrote
You really think the workers are in the same union with upper management? 😅
thegameksk t1_jcgcsd3 wrote
The MTA themselves would rather give OT than hire. You know how long people wait for a call to work for the MTA? MTA doesn't want to pay for healthcare, etc for new hires when they can just give OT
Drunk_Oso t1_jcgu02o wrote
It seems to always be cheaper to offer OT than hire additional people. Same thing in my industry.
akmalhot t1_jcid39e wrote
So just keep wasting I stead of fixing. Thats literally why we have so much inflation and bs going on.
[deleted] t1_jcgcyrd wrote
[deleted]
acmilan12345 t1_jcfvtrw wrote
This is the part I don’t think this subreddit gets.
There is a certain amount of mismanagement involved in most government entities. Yes, in an ideal world, you would fix all of these problems before giving the MTA money.
But these problems are not easily fixed, and the MTA needs money now. So that money needs to come from somewhere, and legislators are trying to pretend that the MTA can be self-sufficient, which it can’t.
b1argg t1_jcfbkmm wrote
The MTA doesn't need money, they need to get their house in order and stop lighting it on fire
LOVE2FUKWITHPP t1_jcf8htx wrote
No we need more money to go to the migrants coming from other countries
Don’t be greedy
We need to give em trough our taxes more Medicaid , food stamps , cash assistance and housing vouchers
Ok
If u were born here and have not got rich that on u
We need to help and give more
“ give us your hungry and POORS”
b1argg t1_jcfbpwn wrote
Ban any additional funding to the MTA until they bring costs in line with comparable major cities.
misterferguson t1_jcfqx25 wrote
I can't see how this could ever backfire for commuters.
b1argg t1_jcfu73u wrote
We already have a problem. They'll just keep asking for more and barely give us anything for it.
misterferguson t1_jcfuujy wrote
And capping funding will achieve what exactly?
b1argg t1_jcfxp5f wrote
Forcing them to get their house in order. Then they can have more money to build stuff with less waste and graft.
misterferguson t1_jcfxtsq wrote
Okay, so don’t complain when they cut service.
trainmaster611 t1_jcgf87v wrote
I promise you that cutting MTA's budget won't magically cause it to reform by itself. The MTA needs major structural reform to address underlying structural issues, but that's a plodding years-long process with lots of political bargaining that needs to be driven by pols who are willing to take on a messy fight. Cutting the budget without reform in place is going to make MTA take the easy route to cutting costs: cutting service.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcf70yl wrote
>"Lawmakers are searching for other ways to close the agency's financial gaps.”
We all know what our NY legislative wants:
- Pretend fare evasion ($500 million per year loss) is not a problem.
- Cut costs by reducing train frequency and skimping on maintenance.
- Extract money from drivers.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcf93ss wrote
I mean, I'm fine with that last one. Nobody in this city should really be driving.
ForeignWin9265 t1_jcfj25b wrote
Bro you clearly never been to some neighborhoods in the outer boroughs and it shows
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcfkx7q wrote
The only reason people need to drive in those neighborhoods is because everyone drives in those neighborhoods. It's a catch-22. The buses are unreliable and slow and biking is unsafe because of all the cars and everyone drives because the buses are slow and unreliable and biking is unsafe.
HEIMDVLLR t1_jcfx5aj wrote
Biking is actually safer the further you get away from Manhattan. The streets are wider and the rare trucks that do show up, stick to the main avenues and boulevards where the businesses are.
Funny thing is those businesses usually have parking lots where the trucks can park away from the street to offload.
The buses are unreliable because the nearest subway station isn’t close by. The bus stops every other block to pickup/drop off passengers. You might have to take a bus in the opposite direction of where you need to go, because that’s how the city planned the routes.
If you drive in these areas you know buses don’t give a fuck about cars, they don’t have a problem cutting you off as they pull away from the curb.
akmalhot t1_jcfa6v2 wrote
People who live inside the city shoodk not be allowed to drive anywhere outside the city ?
People should not be driving INTO the city . People who live in Manhattan do not drive around the city , it's not worth the hassle outside of a few random outer borough trips not serves well by public transport if that's a thing.
Every single congestion zone in the world offers variance for people who live inside the zone. I'm going home, I have a right to not pay absurd fees to go home , certainly should.nit be the same fee as a jabroni driving into the city to go to dinner for fun
All you anti car lunatics are too much it's X or Y when nothing In life is.lkke that
That's why all our policy sucks and doesn't work.
Doesn't even have to be a permanent variance, could be you get 2 trips a month
But no one would even agree with that, because your goal isn't congestion reduction, being reasonable or anything of the sort, its just purely to punish others, punish cars, and/or punish someone who has something you don't .
[deleted] t1_jchshc7 wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcfbc8m wrote
I say that as someone who lives in Manhattan, uses mass transit everywhere and loves walking and biking.
But even I still rely on cars once in a while, and I know that a lot of hard-working people that I care in my life depends on cars a lot more than I do.
[deleted] t1_jcff50u wrote
[deleted]
wreckballin t1_jciee2r wrote
Exactly this. Have them open the books and show their budget spending first.
I am sure there is a lot of waste, wrongful overtime and pocketing of money.
I remember the last time they said they needed more money. Not from a fair hike but from the state and they said, hey let’s have a look at them books. Needless to say they came back and said, oh wait. Forgot about it we “found “ the money needed. There were error in the records. Hmm
[deleted] t1_jcfbt06 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jcfhubb wrote
Was the article only 4 sentences long for anyone else? I thought I was being paywalled or something. I've always been reading elsewhere that the MTA just desperately needs more funding and ridership just hasn't reached pre-pandemic levels to support itself. Something needs to give and I do hope the MTA figures out (with local, state and federal support) how it can continue providing what should be world class services relative to NYC's actual competitors. Albany always dictating so much for NYC also is kinda discouraging to read.
stewartm0205 t1_jcfr5i9 wrote
They should increase the government subsidy to the MTA. Right now with the low ridership, a fare hike would just make it worse. Put it off. Look at ways to cut cost without reducing maintenance.
vanshnookenraggen t1_jcgya40 wrote
Politicians keeping the subway fare 5 cents for 40 years is partly why we are in this mess. No one likes higher fares, but without a source of funds, the transit falls apart (even more).
And to anyone who thinks the solution is to privatize the subway, fares would be $6.
infpmusing t1_jch1ozd wrote
Nassau County did this with their bus service. Idk about increase in cost but they absolutely cut service compared to when it was run by the MTA.
That said. I think we should be incentivizing people to take public transit because it reduces emissions and traffic etc. Yes things have to be paid for but capitalism has forced us to prioritize the stick when the best way to get people to do what you want them to do is show them the carrot.
snoberto77 t1_jcigbiq wrote
Fare hike… decline in service… something dont add up
futxcfrrzxcc t1_jciswk1 wrote
Giving more money to the MTA is asinine. They are a black pit of despair.
[deleted] t1_jcflpzc wrote
[deleted]
Puzzleheaded-Draw119 t1_jcfphox wrote
If things cost money maybe they should tax the rich people that have that money, and maybe those rich people should realize ever life luxury (you're talking about transportation, a necessity not a luxury) isn't their own exclusive right.
soliejordan t1_jcgknr0 wrote
So true. I don't recall there being more taxes for drones or weapons for Ukraine or Silicon Valley Bank. All of these were subsidized by the government. The MTA can get the extra money from the government as well.
Pennwisedom t1_jcgqlvo wrote
I'm not sure what you're talking about, the US hasn't bought new drones or weapons among what they gave to you Ukraine, they've been giving them old end-of-service life extra materials that we have laying around. And the money for SVB came from the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is a fund paid into by the banks, and also interest on government bonds, no taxpayer money has been used for this.
soliejordan t1_jcgucqm wrote
Right, tax payer money is ever use for government spending. Even if it's old stuff to Ukraine people's taxes that were collected were not used to pay for that junk. Taxes did not pay for drones. Taxes do not pay for anything at the federal level. That's why I stated the government can subsidized the MTA. Taxes do not pay for government spending.
Pennwisedom t1_jcgusa3 wrote
I agree with you. Perhaps I was just misunderstanding the original post.
PoopEmoji8618 t1_jcf7cd6 wrote
Good. Wasn’t a fan of the fare hike to the ferry either