Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow may be heading up to Albany to go a-begging for more money to fund the MTA's projects, including the Second Avenue Subway. What it boils down to is that the state only gave the MTA one third of the $7.9 billion the MTA requested for the Second Avenue Subway, LIRR rail link to Grand Central, and the rail link from lower Manhattan to JFK. Apparently, Governor Pataki thought that there "was enough money" for the Second Avenue Subway and Grand Central project; plus, $1 billion has already been spent on them. Further, the Federal Transit Authority has already given the MTA $4 billion towards projects - where has that gone? Hmm!
The NY Times says that MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow thinks the Second Avenue Subway will happen, but it's "just being stretched out." Newsday puts a nail in the coffin, saying, "It seems likely that the Second Avenue subway will remain the most famous city line never to be built." Gothamist has to agree with Newsday: Stretched out is code for "Not in my lifetime - or yours."
The MTA's Second Avenue Subway plan and Gothamist thinks the New York magazine Second Avenue Subway issue might be a collector's - or a good gag gift. And our readers' wonderings about what color the T line would be - are they for naught?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Kinda makes you wonder how the entire subway system ever got built in the first place.
Privately.
Dave H.
Unfortunately, not many people know the true history behind the IRT, BMT, et al.
If your suggestion was false I'd be laughing instead of bemoaning the irrationality of those who believe in the fiction of public sector development.
There is not one "public good" which can't be delivered on-time, cost-efficient, and be highly utilized through the private sector.
On the other hand the public sector financed "public goods" (which are debatable in utility) tend to take decades just to get off the ground (see 2nd Ave line); waste m/billions of taxpayer monies on boondoggles, subsidies and greased palms (see Amtrak, Union Pacific, Central Pacific); are built shoddy and inefficient (since the developer pockets the difference), and usually burn through the allocated funds a few times until the project is completed post-schedule, if ever.
wow...
please, put down "Atlas Shrugged"...step away from the book....
Of course, it was the Brooklyn Rapid Transit company that was largely responsible for the deadliest subway disaster in U.S. history. When their union went on strike in 1918, the company replaced its workers with scabs. This may or may not have resulted in the Brooklyn crash that killed 102 people. And the terrible crash in Japan that happened this (last?) week occurred on a privately owned rail service. Their are pros and cons to all public vs. private endeavors. I was just trying to answer Subway Jared's seemingly rhetorical question.
with all our experiences with the MTA, you'd think at this point at least some trust in "public services" would have eroded.
honestly, i'd settle for a good old fashioned stalinist show trial featuring all the MTA heads. we could exile them to someplace unpleasant, like long island, or maybe the atlantic ocean, on a dingy.
a single, lone dingy...
The IRT and the BMT may have been private companies, but the subways were built using public funding.
Also? Amtrak is subsidized because the private companies that preceded it went out of business. The amount of money given to Amtrak in its entire history is less than the money that the government handed out to the airlines after the 9/11 attacks.
Transportation never was, and never will be, a profitable business.
Interesting that the recent accident in Japan is mentioned.
The company, JR West, had gone completely private last year after the nationally owned rail network was split up in 1987. JR West had trouble making profit, and a couple of factors - an inexperienced driver and an antiquated (by non-NYC standards) automatic warning system - point to cost cutting.
Now, the nationally owned rail network was a disaster. It was terribly inefficient with unprofitable lines, delays and insufficient improvements. Privatization/breakup was badly needed. But you also have to make sure the private companies make the necessary investments that may not benefit their bottom line.
you're right tscola, but that reality doesn't fit into free market absolutist ideology. it's much easier to just revise history and hope nobody notices.
Citizen, put down the Grapes of Wrath...please. It's more Thomas DiLorenzo than Ayn Rand in my arguments, and the Randite attacks are quite childish.
Nobody said the free market is perfect; so comparing it with what you consider to be the idealic state is fallacious (the Nirvana fallacy to be specific).
Worse is when people confuse free market principles, for mixed-economy tragedies, and then think the answer is to socialize further.
tscola & hijiki - "Transportation never was, and never will be, a profitable business."
Like I said, public sector goods are debatable in utility. If there is a need for a specific form of transportation, it will lack no private funding (JetBlue anyone?). Propping up Amtrak and saying it deserves subsidizing because it can't make it on its own is only a sign that Amtrak really isn't serving the public's needs (hence it has no or little utility), and that the public found better transportation alternatives (airplanes, ferries, automobile, etc.).
It would be interesting to hear you guy defend public subsidizing for horse & buggy companies, since you guys don't understand the concept of things being wasteful and inefficient (the only explanation why you won't let Amtrak die.)
And I think that auto manufacturers worldwide would beg to differ with your assertion regarding the viability of the transportation business.
And whats most ironic here is that I'm sure most of you are anti-corporate welfare. So why in Gods name are you supporting any industry subsidization?