New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
64 Things Restaurant Patrons Must NEVER Do
With talk of the MTA raising fares again after recently raising them (well, not the bus and subway base fare, but still), there are some suggestions about what the MTA can do instead.
For instance, City Councilman Eric Gioia proposed that the MTA sell its midtown building at 44th Street and Madison Avenue to raise money. He said, "There's no justification for the MTA to be on Madison Avenue. This is a glaring example of an asset being underutilized." Per the Sun, the MTA noted it has sold off expensive properties and is working on other cost cutting measures, but selling office buildings is not in the plans for now.
On a smaller scale, since appearances matter, it's questionable whether MTA management should get raises. MTA Executive Director and CEO Elliot Sander received a 3% pay increase, retroactive to January, which now brings his salary and benefits package to $350,000 annually. Sure, $10,000 isn't anything when phrases like "$29 billion budget gap" are being bandied about, but the Straphangers Campaign's Gene Russianoff told the Daily News, "You're kidding...I think he's a great head of the MTA, but you don't raise salaries in the middle of talk about a fare hike. ... The message it sends is not a good one amid tough times for the riding public."
Maybe the MTA thinks these raises will attract people to take high-level management jobs, since vacancies in those positions are stalling plans like the Second Avenue Subway and LIRR East Side Access! And Governor Paterson appointed a commission to study MTA funding--our suggestion is that the commission study how the state can chip in more.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Again, charge fat people that take up two (sometimes three) seats double for a metro-card. Have an electronic scale at the bottom of the metro-card machine. Problem solved.
The MTA needs to lease its expensive land, not sell it off.
It's a good thing we didn't take the opportunity to get all that congestion pricing money, because clearly we didn't need it.
Instead of wasting his time with plans like closing Park Avenue on Sundays in August, why doesn't the mayor actually do something for ordinary New Yorkers and fight for more funding, whether it be in Albany or Washington.
The MTA is definitely mismanaged, but it's also extremely underfunded.
more ads?
Ugh yeah, pretty soon the entire interior and exterior of the trains will be covered in Stoli ads. All of these measures are like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. What the MTA needs is more funding not worthless measures that work only in the extremely short term.
I still don't understand why the MTA has a flat rate fee for the commuters. MTA should have a different fares for on-peak and off-peak hours. Why should commuters pay the same fare during the weekends and evening and late-night hours for longer waits and commute, more transfers, and less service?
Also, if one has to pay more during rush hours, this should discourage tourists, or whoever who does not have to get to their destination in a rush, from riding the trains (hopefully) during the rush hour commute, whereby if they wait until, let's say, after 10 am or so, they can pay less.
Does anyone know the financial figures for The Tube in London? Are they above profit? Surely they have a more open accounting system there...
Why not fire Executive Director and CEO Elliot Sander. He's obviously incapable of managing the system without fare hikes AND you save all that money he would otherwise be paid.
Seize all of Bloomberg's assets and sell them off at auction to keep that fare hike at a minimum.
No mass transit system makes a profit. All require some form of government subsidy. Your two dollar ride on the F train costs the MTA about six dollars.
The underground isn't the only subway in the world you know. The metro in Paris runs relatively smoothly in a cleaner environment for roughly the same price we pay. My favourite example is that of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Trains arrive every minute (no lie) or so with delays very rare and the price is a little less than one U.S. dollar (or it was last year).
No transit systems make a profit.
NYers pay the highest percentage of the cost of a ride -- over 50%. In other US cities, the far covers less than 25% of the cost of a ride.
The biggest issue is that federal law will not allow any state more than 20% of the total Mass Transit appropriations -- but NY State has more mass transit riders than any other state -- so we get screwed.
God, don't make it like London. In London, you pay by the zone (the further you travel, the more you pay). A one-way ride on the London tube within Zone 1 (city center) cost 4GBP or around $8.
Setting up a zone system, similar to London's, is essentially a tax on the poor. It's a very classist system.
You can shut down the system between 1am and 5am for maintenance every day like other systems do. That'll save some dough and repairs can be made without the pain of rerouting trains during busy times.
This is the only 24/7 subway system of its size. But then again this is the city that never sleeps and many people rely on those late night trains. But its something to think about.
I believe that the Hong Kong subway system (privately managed) does in fact turn a profit. However, the profitable dollars don't come from fares but from the fact that they lease out the valuable commercial space in the stations themselves.
Have young kids walk the length of the subway selling candy to raise money.
"No mass transit system makes a profit."
From www.nyrapidtransit.com:
According to Moody's Investor's Manual "the B.M.T. (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Co.) has demonstrated its ability to earn a dividend on its common stock at a five cent fare"
Our subways were profitable, before the MTA that is.
dr zippy wrote:
But MidCFrank wrote:So which is it?Personally, I'm in favor of variable pricing. I'm not sure why I should pay the same to ride the A train two stops from my apartment near the Jay St./Borough Hall station to my office near the Broadway/Nassau station as my friend who lives in Inwood pays to ride it all the way from Dyckman Street to Howard Beach/JFK if he's going to the airport. It's a great deal paying a flat fare to get anywhere, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
"Our subways were profitable, before the MTA that is."
The operational running of the system? Possibly yes. But there is no way the system can finance most its own upgrades and system expansion projects that can run into the tens of billions of dollars. The government has to fit a huge chunk of that bill.
The 2nd avenue subway is a prime example of that. Same goes for the LIRR extension into Grand Central. Such projects are extremely expensive.
It is safe to assume MidCFrank has more command of the facts than me. The larger point being the MTA doesn't come close to making a profit.
If running the subway system were profitable companies would be competing to run it.
Re: #21
You're right.
That leads me to my next fear; that the MTA will get the money for capital projects, but fritter it away for it's mismanaged, bureaucratic, belated, and inefficient operation and maintainence.
Most others don't realize that the BMT, in it's day, had to compete with the IRT, H&M, and IND while answering to the city and it's own shareholders.
Re: #5
No objection from me.
Bring on the wrap-around ads, Zoetrope tunnel ads, and platform cellphone reception, if that's what it'll take to postpone the next fare hike or build the 2nd Avenue subway.
Re: #17
The IND stations have these aircraft carrier sized mezzanines that are mostly empty. These too could be leased out to businesses. Plus all those extra eyes underground could help with security.
You can shut down the system between 1am and 5am for maintenance every day like other systems do.
Realistically that will put more late night bicycles on the road along with the inevitable increase in drunk drivers.
Next discussion-provoking topic: I'd be interested in finding out the annual amount of federal dollars go toward the highway system vs mass transit. Obviously more people are on the highway system and they should justly receive more funds, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're a couple of lean years away from siphoning a percentage of highway funds toward expanding the mass transit system...
The Interstate System is completed. Most new major highways being proposed are either tollways that are privately financed or state initiated roads that require fewer federal dollars. With so little new construction and only rehabilitation and maintenance issues for most of the system, much more federal money would be available for transit if the dollars weren't diverted to pay for Iraq, Halliburton, and Laura Bush's brazillian waxes. At the end of the day, you spend big on mass transit, not to make a stupid fucking "profit", but to prevent the alternative: costly gridlock and congestion. Now go ask Barack Obama what visionary plans he has for mass transit in america. Go ahead. Ask.
"Now go ask Barack Obama what visionary plans he has for mass transit in America. Go ahead. Ask."
Yeah but he'll subsidize/make gas cheap again so it doesn't matter!!! Problem solved! wooo
I am with JMH on variable pricing. More zones = more costs so the rider should be paying more.
Snowman -
"Yeah but he'll subsidize/make gas cheap again so it doesn't matter!!! Problem solved! wooo"
Why would you think that? Since the Democrats have been in control of congress the gas price has doubled and it is at the price of $4/gal they actually wanted it to be all along. They must have been given some of that oil money from Bush's friends huh?