Gothamist: MTA Meets to Discuss Fare Hike, Service Cuts

Qraymond

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:29:14 -0500

Sign our petition to save the M8 Bus: www.savethem8.org

TK

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:51:05 -0500

Of course commuter taxes are assessed on individuals, not on businesses. In a small business (

TK

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:46:18 -0500

Of course commuter taxes are assessed on individuals, not on businesses. In a small business (

edward_g_robincat

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:40:33 -0500

@Steven - I don't think I'm better or worse than a suburbanite. Suburbs have trees and parking. Cities have food and culture. To each his (or her) own. Suburbanites riding the subway on a regular basis greatly outnumber NYC dwellers riding NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North (combined). These people coming into NYC are without a doubt taking advantage of many services paid for by city residents. Whether or not that is acceptable is a up for debate.

Steven

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:31:46 -0500

Here it starts again - City people think they're better than the suburban people. If suburban people use the subways city people also use NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro-North. People in Long Island and parts of the Hudson Valley also pay part of the MTA tax because of the railroads.

Qraymond

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:18:34 -0500

Also, the commuter tax is levied on the business' workers, not on the business itself.

Qraymond

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:17:49 -0500

TK: A commuter tax would certainly NOT incentivize small businesses to move outside the city. That's absurd. A commuter tax is nominal compared to all of the other expenses that a city business incurs.

edward_g_robincat

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:46:41 -0500

@10 - Screw people who commute in from NJ, LI, and CT. They still use our sidewalks and subways and police and most other services the city theoretically provides. They are surfing on our high taxes and if they don't like paying a commuter tax they can move elsewhere. That, in turn, would reduce the strain on the MTA. They might as well move since a fair number of them recently lost their jobs anyway.

TK

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:41:58 -0500

Commuter taxes would only incentivize smaller businesses to locate outside of the city. As with most (all?) taxes the end doesnt justify the means. And Detroit really isnt the best example of successful urban planning.

rasputinsghost

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:28:09 -0500

I'm sure people who commute in from NJ, LI, and CT would be pretty pissed about it...

las2381

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:10:57 -0500

why not reinstate a commuter tax for people who work in NYC but do not live in NYC? I know Detroit has that. Would that really be so terrible??

goodcow

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:00:46 -0500

"Let me see if I understand the MTA here. The MTA has record ridership and yet they have no money so the system is in danger of failing because it can't be financed." Yes, because the $15 billion that Pataki told the MTA to borrow is coming due in greater and greater volume each year, and the debt service payments come from the operating budget.

MT

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:58:29 -0500

Let me see if I understand the MTA here. The MTA has record ridership and yet they have no money so the system is in danger of failing because it can't be financed. The city wants to put tolls on the East River (RFK River anyone? Anyone?) bridges to help the MTA which will in turn make it too expensive to drive into Manhattan so more people will want to take the subway which will (according to the MTA) put more strain on them but fewer people will be driving so they won't be getting all that much money from the tolls. Meanwhile, the only people paying the tolls will be truck drivers since everything HAS to be trucked into Manhattan. That in turn will raise the prices of just about everything we buy because manufacturers will have to cover increased transportation costs. So in the end the MTA isn't getting any more money from anyone except the riders and the record numbers of riders will get screwed at the turnstile and in the deli. Does anyone want to tell me how this makes sense? KTHNXBYE!

emilydickinson

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:46:10 -0500

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to avoid service cuts, even if it means taking the hit and paying $3 - $4 a ride.

QM

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:41:26 -0500

Hopefully, the depression will come before they raise our fare. That way, they'll have to find a new way of raising money.

jrd550

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:40:06 -0500

The MTA should be improving services not cutting them... does the Mayor's office have any control over decisions that they make?

goodcow

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:39:53 -0500

THE PROBLEM IS NEW YORK STATE AND PATAKI. PATAKI FUCKED US AND WE'RE PAYING FOR IT NOW. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/nyregion/20transit.html The authority first began a capital spending program in 1982 in what became a successful effort to pull the transit system out of a catastrophic spiral of decay. At first the programs were financed with a combination of money from the state and city and borrowing. After George E. Pataki became governor in 1995, he sharply cut state funds for the capital programs and told the authority to borrow more. As a result, the last two five-year plans have been, in the words of the authority’s current executive director, Elliot G. Sander, put on a credit card. That has made the authority one of the largest debtors in the country — it owes nearly $27 billion — and has hobbled it with fast-growing interest payments.

Steven

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:37:53 -0500

Everyone knows there will be a massive fare hike and service cuts. If you want to tell the MTA F*uck y*ou then one day commuters should get together and don't pay the fare.

babyhitler

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:37:08 -0500

The MTA doesn't have a budget deficit. All they have is more union employees and upper management taking increased wages and bigger slices of the profits for themselves.