Congestion Pricing ...redux

Idlewild said:

So I'm a republican who assumes, because I bring up issues, which btw, is pretty much common knowledge to any NYC/NYS resident who can see, hear or smell, about how this city and state are run?

I didn't mean say YOU were a Republican, I phrased that post poorly. Just that that concept is one that Republicans also love. Republicans love it, that does not make you a Republican for agreeing.

Anyway...

is pretty much common knowledge to any NYC/NYS resident who can see, hear or smell, about how this city and state are run?

The public perceives lots of things that aren't true. Should we start listing them?

"they're all corrupt and that's where all the money goes" makes us feel better and gives us a place to direct our frustrations. But the actual real world evidence of it slim.

Of course there are cases of massive corruption and inefficiency, but these cases don't prove that they're the PRIMARY source of revenue problems.

The MTA needs to convince us that the additional money (we are once again being asked for...) will be put to good use.

The burden is also on the public to educate themselves, not sit up in their chairs and decide that the system doesn't work b/c their train was delayed to work today and the conductor was a jerk.

How many average joe critics of the subway do you think know about how other subway systems are run? or how the financing works? or what a lock box is?

Criticizing the MTA for being corrupt and "outright thieves" is the same as complaining about the weather:

simplistic and ultimately pointless, but it sure does make us feel better about things we can't control.

BG, to your point, most people don't know how MTA financing works or what a lockbox is, how a municipal bond works, what it means to be a moral obligation of a state, or the difference between a state agency and a state authority. For that matter, the average NYer doesn't understand that the Mayor has zero control over the MTA or anything that happens on that system.

Before people can educate themselves on finances they have to have a basic understanding of civics, which is woefully lacking in NY at all.

whynot_31 said:

Isn't it reasonable for the public to demand that they present us with a plan to get their large debt under control, so our increase in tolls/fare don't just go to pay off the existing bondholders?

While I appreciate the substantial cuts this article describes, $6.9 billion in debt is still a lot of money, right?

If we made it harder for them to issue bonds, would they find more savings?

I wish we didn't have to, but I hope this new President is able to achieve more wage, benefit and work rule concessions from the unions.

It is an embarrassment to everyone involved that the union rules protect some positions (such as idle token booth clerks), and only allow the MTA to cut vital departments (such as maintenance and cleaning).

It also may be time to move toward a (gasp) non-24/7/365 subway system, that provides only bus service from 1 AM - 5 AM.

I don't know enough about MTA financing. I mean, are the useless toll booth clerks a major reason they're having a crisis? Or is it just a highly visible inefficiency that pisses you and I off?

As a general rule, this nation does not give enough money to public transit, and increasingly makes ridiculous demands that it be profitable, as opposed to a public service, like sanitation or police.

Does the MTA need massive reform? Of course.

Should it make enough profit to break even? Not convinced that's reasonable.

Your solution is to renege on union contracts.

Mine would combine union reform with increased funding.

whynot_31 said:

Using very round, imaginary numbers:

If the system was not subsidized, and paid its bills as they were incurred (as opposed to thru debt), our fare could be about xx amount (let's imagine $10) each way. Note: this sloppy analysis assumes no decrease in ridership due to the higher far...

....public transportation is affordable for the same reasons public housing is affordable: It is expensive, yet subsidized.

If the president was empowered to renege on union contracts (labor, benefits, wages, work rules, etc) which prevent him from effectively cutting costs, the fares could drop to yy (let's imagine $6) each way.

Okay, so here's where you have to start.

1) Are you talking about a total unsubsidized fare (where the total costs of each system LIRR,Metro North, Subway, Bus, SI Rail) are calculated then averaged across the MTA system as a whole to get a standard fare, or an unsubsidized fare for each system?

2) What happens for Metro-North if CT refuses (as it has in the past) to pay for its share of necessary maintenance and upkeep? Does the MTA pick up these costs anyway? Are those costs allocated only to Metro-North riders or shared across the entire system?

3) Currently, NYS law prohibits public employees from striking and imposes what are supposed to be highly punitive damages if strikes occur illegally (basically, they take away the union funding for a specified period of time). If you have the Governor reneging on a state contract, you'd likely find all the other public sector employees in the state striking out of sympathy and a fear that their contracts would also not be complied with. In addition, unions would try to negotiate out of the no-strike clause for future contracts. Can you live with this level of uncertainty regarding public services?