Thursday, May 7, 2009

Transit saved...hallelujah!

From NY1:

The MTA says that residents of the Rockaways and Broad Channel will continue to travel across the Cross Bay Bridge for free.

Also apparently off the table: elimination of W and Z trains, the J express and 8 Queens bus lines. But the fare will likely increase to $2.25. Dale Hemmerdinger's out, too.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Heh, heh, heh....now Dale's free to help Damon "save" Atlas Park!

Anonymous said...

For a few months, perhaps. But it doesn't fund the capital plan, and the further crumbling economy and failure to toll the bridges will bring us back here again very soon.

Anonymous said...

2011: $2.50
2013: $3.00

faster340 said...

These people have no imagination as to how to raise money. I am sure there is a lot of money that is owed the MTA out there, collect it. Why can't they raise advertising rates? Why can't they have more advertising? The baseball teams have been putting advertiser logo's on their uniforms. Why can't they cut the costs of the contractors who do business with the MTA too? The MTA could get temporary tax breaks as well. All this would avoid hitting the regular riders in the pocket like it always does. I don't know, I just don't think they put as much thought into this as they could have. It's always "raise the rates" when they need more money.

Anonymous said...

What was saved?

This was a well scripted song and dance presented by all the parties involved.

We got a fare increase for rotten service didn't we?

But I am glad that Dale was dropped!

Anonymous said...

This is an election year and it wouldn't look very good (along with all his other woes) for Bloomberg to try and grab a 3rd term with our public transport system on the hooks.

As soon as he gets re-elected (G-d forbid) we'll be seeing a fare increase.

This was all just a bit of temporary political back room dealing imposed by hizzoner.

Mark my words!

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg has no control over MTA fares

Anonymous said...

Bullshit. He appoints half the MTA board.

Anonymous said...

The MTA is governed by a 17-member Board representing New York City and each of the counties in the Transportation District.

Members are nominated by the Governor, with four recommended by New York City’s mayor, and one each by the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. Each of these members has one vote.

The mayor "recommends" less than a 1/4 of the members. The state is mainly in control of the MTA.

Anonymous said...

And you think he has no input in who the other board members are? THEY'RE ALL RICH FOLK LIKE HIM. Hemmerdinger...helllloooooo.....

Anonymous said...

total idiots they cant run the mta and make a profit it has to come from the people that dont use the system the people that drive own cars they make money on the reg of the car the gas the car uses the tolls that i pay and i never used mass transit the people that use should pay there fair share raise the fare for the people that use not the people that dont and dont even get me started with the payroll tax all that it means is less money that will flow thru the economy

Anonymous said...

KEEP IT 2
KEEP IT 8 QUARTERS
why do we have to pay more and get less

this is not nyc as i remember

Anonymous said...

YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEE

/sarcasm

Anonymous said...

total idiots they cant run the mta and make a profit it has to come from the people that dont use the system the people that drive own cars they make money on the reg of the car the gas the car uses the tolls that i pay and i never used mass transit the people that use should pay there fair share raise the fare for the people that use not the people that dont and dont even get me started with the payroll tax all that it means is less money that will flow thru the economy

--------------------------

1. Periods are your friends.
2."there" does not equal "their"
3. Even people who don't use mass transit benefit from it. I don't own a car, which means there's less congestion on the roads for someone like you who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.
4. You pay taxes to fund the Fire Department even if your house never burns down. The subway and bus system, like the FDNY, is there for everyone when they need it. Maybe we should start charging people when their houses burn down so that "the people that use should pay there [sic] fair share?"

Anonymous said...

You pay when an ambulance comes and picks you up. You pay when you go to a city hospital to be treated.

Anonymous said...

"1. Periods ...
to
4. You pay taxes ..."

Amen.

"You pay when an ambulance comes and picks you up. You pay when you go to a city hospital to be treated."

And you also pay for your own groceries and cell phone charges. What's your point?
When an ambulance picks you up, you benefit 100% and I benefit 0%, so why should I be paying? But in the case of fire protection, when FDNY puts out the fire in my house, your house next door is also saved from the possibility of spreading conflagration. I benefit 80% and you benefit 20%. You wanna split the bill? Didn't think so. Thus taxes and public spending.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha what an ass. We all pay to have ambulance services at the ready. If you think the couple of hundred bucks to drive to the hospital pays for the whole service you are sadly mistaken.

Queens Crapper said...

Part of the problem with the current system is that the rider pays a flat rate no matter how far they ride. In most other cities, you pay a graduated rate based on distance.

It's kind of ridiculous to charge the same amount whether you ride 1 stop or 20.

Heff said...

A lot of posters on Streetsblog say the say thing about the non-variable rate.

On the one hand having the same rate makes it less confusing to travel and for the monthlies. Also it makes it more attractive to live in say, Flushing if you work in downtown Manhattan.

On the other hand, no it doesn't make sense.

Queens Crapper said...

How about peak and non-peak fares like on the LIRR and Metro North?

Heff said...

Peak and off-peak would be the same thing I guess with the monthlies, but they obviously have it worked out for the LIRR.

Also just FYI, under the current fare rates, ridership actually provides 60+% of the MTA opertating budget. Not capital projects, just the money to keep the system running all night and year round. Last I read the original MTA doomsday plan would raise that up to 80 something percent. Not sure where that stands now, somewhere between I guess.

linda said...

Hey maybe if they stop letting there workers ride for free they wouldn't have to cry all the time and raise fares.

and bloomazz says he rides the trains all the time cheap bastard.

Anonymous said...

Queens Crapper said...
Part of the problem with the current system is that the rider pays a flat rate no matter how far they ride. In most other cities, you pay a graduated rate based on distance.

It's kind of ridiculous to charge the same amount whether you ride 1 stop or 20.

----------------------------------------

You realize, of course, that people in Queens would be paying more.

We had that before 1997. Do you remember the two fare zones? How many people here would scream about that if someone from the MTA proposed that?

Anonymous said...

No because you could keep the free transfer between bus and subway. When you ride buses in other towns it's not based on distance. The buses tend not to go as far as the trains.

Anonymous said...

"How many people here would scream about that if someone from the MTA proposed that?"

No one. Two fare zones kept Queens livable for a long time.

Anonymous said...

Make the bus $1 since it's mostly older people and schoolchildren on them anyway. Then a graduated system on the subway. Makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"How many people here would scream about that if someone from the MTA proposed that?"

No one. Two fare zones kept Queens livable for a long time.

Thursday, May 07, 2009
---------------------------------------

You're very wrong. Find one elected official, one community organization, one group of any kind who would support your position on that. The end of two-fare zones made a huge difference to a lot of people.

Anonymous said...

Look, what they say in public is very different from how they really feel. The two fare zones started to become more rough around the edges when the transfer was instituted. There's not one area of Queens where quality of life improved because of this.

Anonymous said...

Too much supervision and management........too many take home cars.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Look, what they say in public is very different from how they really feel. The two fare zones started to become more rough around the edges when the transfer was instituted. There's not one area of Queens where quality of life improved because of this.

Thursday, May 07, 2009
---------------------------------------

All I'm saying is make that proposal and see how people react. If this was at a public hearing, would one speaker talk in favor of reinstituting two-fare zones? Would any newspaper editorialize in favor? Go back to the public hearings before 1997. There wasn't one where people weren't complaining about paying two fares.

That genie is out of the bottle, and will never return.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Too much supervision and management........too many take home cars.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

================================

What percent of supervision and management do you get to take home cars?

More to the point, what do you consider to be an adequate amount of management and supervision?

Can you name another agency that has the right level?

Anonymous said...

3.00 each way if we can tie Hiram Monserrate to the tracks and drive the train over him--repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Part of the problem with the current system is that the rider pays a flat rate no matter how far they ride. In most other cities, you pay a graduated rate based on distance.

Bingo. And it's not just about 1 or 2 fare zones, as some are arguing. Fares should be graduated every two or three stops, with a minimum fare of, say, a buck or a buck fitty. But then, this would require MTA to get their whole system up to 1995 global standards.

Anonymous said...

A dept that has 600 line personnel and has 180 staff of supervisors, analysts,supts,general supts, asst. general manager, general manager,director,asst.chief etc...........there are other titles beside this............. that's top-heavy

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A dept that has 600 line personnel and has 180 staff of supervisors, analysts,supts,general supts, asst. general manager, general manager,director,asst.chief etc...........there are other titles beside this............. that's top-heavy

Saturday, May 09, 2009

===============================

How may employees in general? What's the ratio?

Anonymous said...

That is just one dept within nyc transit.You can get the gist of the whole mta by that little snapshot.You can figure out the ratio,too many chiefs and not enough indians.Actually, asian/indians are a fast growing segment of nyc transit,no pun intended.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is just one dept within nyc transit.You can get the gist of the whole mta by that little snapshot.You can figure out the ratio,too many chiefs and not enough indians.Actually, asian/indians are a fast growing segment of nyc transit,no pun intended.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

----------------------------------

How can I figure out the ratio if I don't know how many employees there are?

Anonymous said...

I can only give you the numbers for this dept,not the whole mta....180 into 600,figure it out.......