MTA votes to raise fares, cut transit...

MTA votes to raise fares, cut transit services

There are 28 comments on the Newsday story from Mar 25, 2009, titled MTA votes to raise fares, cut transit services. In it, Newsday reports that:

A Long Island Rail Road conductor punches tickets. The last stop for the money train is Albany.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Big Dave

Shoreham, NY

#1 Mar 25, 2009
The Pols. in albany should stop playing and do something!
Ruben Safir

San Jose, CA

#2 Mar 25, 2009
The MTA can easily cut out the LIRR to Gran Central Station program which will cost US 15.2 billion dollars, and then use that money for its operations, and debt service. The choices being presented to the City are false. We don't have to choose between Tolls or service cuts and fare hikes. We can just spend less on massive additional projects that the system doesn't need.

Instead of the Grand Central LIRR program, we can save the 15.2 billion dollars, maintain service and give LIRR riders free transfers at Atlantic Avenue to the subway, while retaining the Pen station subway fare. Trains on the IRT can start at Atlantic Avenue which has the subway capacity. That will encourage riders to use the under utilized Brooklyn LIRR Terminal ending any need for an LIRR extension and providing full service for everyone. Simple enough? Not if you work for Bloomberg and want to use the MTA as a wedge to get tolls on the Brooklyn Bridge.
Just Carol

AOL

#4 Mar 26, 2009
I don't get this whole scenario!
8 1/2 million riders a day spending how much per day, and the MTA is going broke????
Oh the politicians are all stuffing their pockets big time with this money! I'm so tired of the pols getting richer every day by taking money earmarked for what it was intended for, i.e., lottery money was earmarked for education until they made these boards & commissions up so all the rich pols got MORE MONEY and the education system got ZERO!
The whole system has to be thrown out with all the crooks in office and built from the bottom up again.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#7 Mar 26, 2009
Big Dave wrote:
The Pols. in albany should stop playing and do something!
Public transportation should be privatized and not controlled by the government. They should never get government subsidies and follow the rules of supply and demand. If we had this, public transportation would be much cheaper.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#8 Mar 26, 2009
John Kulik wrote:
I work for the LIRR and the waste is incredible!!! There are now 1000 managers doing the work that was once done by twenty. There are hundreds of supervisors where there were once three.
In every corner of the operation, money is wasted. New locomotives burn five time the fuel of the older ones.
Five conductors work on trains with three passengers, and most of the conductors just go home in the middle of the day and many don't even show up for work.
The State would not have to look hard to cut costs.
The president, Helena Williams, who earns over $300,000 a year with no railroad experience, has busted the budget with silly nonsense three times. And after three years, the MTA gives her a $ 2.5 million lifetime pension.
Waste, waste everywhere. It's just incredible!
This is precisely why public transportation should be privately owned. When other peoples money is used to manage it, they care not how much it costs. Why do you think the southern state parkway has so many unnecessary bends in it? It is because the government paid Robert Moses by the mile; the more miles of road he laid out, the more money he made. So naturally he made so many bends in it.

If a private company was managing the MTA and other forms of public transportation with their own money instead or the taxpayers, they sure aren't going to be wasteful. Of course there will always be these dopes that would cry 'monopoly'.

So many people want the government to protect us, but it isn't in their best interest to do that. The more people belly ache about how the government should "do something", the more government we get and more government always costs us more.
LI Alumni

Milford, CT

#9 Mar 26, 2009
While one can feel sorry for those who have to pay the increased MTA fares, I have never heard anyone feel sorry for the people who have to drive cars to work because there is no real mass transit in Suffolk or Nassau counties that can get you to work off the beaten path. Has anyone offered to bail out the motorist who had to pay $4.29 a gallon for gasoline,$2.99 a quart for motor oil, the 2nd highest insurance rate in the nation, etc. and the exorbitant tolls just to pass through NYC? You want a car, you have to pay for it and its use, period. The real sad thing here is that on top of the expense of the car, the MTA is taxing you here on LI for the subways in NYC.
Joe

New York, NY

#10 Mar 26, 2009
HELLLLLO, doesn't anybody remember when a few years ago the MTA had 2 sets of books???? One showing a dire need for a fare increase and the other showing a tremendous surplus! Find the other books. Have a private company, that the people pick, to audit both sets of books, find where all the wasted $$$ is going. Stop hitting the little guys.
Karl

Los Angeles, CA

#11 Mar 26, 2009
John Kulik wrote:
I work for the LIRR and the waste is incredible!!! There are now 1000 managers doing the work that was once done by twenty. There are hundreds of supervisors where there were once three.
In every corner of the operation, money is wasted. New locomotives burn five time the fuel of the older ones.
Five conductors work on trains with three passengers, and most of the conductors just go home in the middle of the day and many don't even show up for work.
The State would not have to look hard to cut costs.
The president, Helena Williams, who earns over $300,000 a year with no railroad experience, has busted the budget with silly nonsense three times. And after three years, the MTA gives her a $ 2.5 million lifetime pension.
Waste, waste everywhere. It's just incredible!
Ain't unions grand?
Cat

Randolph, NJ

#13 Mar 26, 2009
This equates to another tax for those living on Long Island. While we all focus on property and school taxes. Home heating oil taxes , increased fares, talk of putting a toll on East river crossings are all thrown on. To live on Long Island, one needs to cross a bridge to get off. An east river crossing would equate to nothing more than a tax. Isn't this why our ancestors threw tea into the water in Boston ?
Penny

AOL

#14 Mar 26, 2009
Those rich politicians always vote for the $ to go into their pockets and let the poor suffer. The new cigarette tax 7-9% (aimed at the smokers only) is suppose to be going to education. I want to know where the extra money is going to come from so I can go plaes in the city. On SSID..and take care of very sick husband who has no benefits.
Elizabeth

United States

#15 Mar 26, 2009
I'm so sick and tired of Long Islanders always carrying the brunt of the burden for all the budget shortfalls. We already pay obscenely high real estate taxes, and we don't seem to get a break anywhere. Why is the MTA slamming us? Because they know we will pay it out of no choice.
LIRR Conductor

Bronx, NY

#16 Mar 26, 2009
libubble wrote:
<quoted text>
Public transportation should be privatized and not controlled by the government. They should never get government subsidies and follow the rules of supply and demand. If we had this, public transportation would be much cheaper.
you mean it would be more expensive.
even with the gov't money the MTA doesn't come close to making a profit, so how would removing gov't money and privatizing make it profitable? the reason the MTA was created was because the former owners of the LIRR (pennsylvania RR) went bankrupt.
privatizing means that the company could triple your fares and nobody would have any say in it.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#17 Mar 26, 2009
Jeff wrote:
You said:
Are you some kind of ****? Moses worked for the State. This is the silliest thing I ever read here. Even more stupid than some of the stuff Newsday prints.
No, I am not some kind of ****; Moses DID do projects for the state.

You should really research things before opening your mouth.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

During the 1920s, Moses sparred with Franklin D. Roosevelt, then head of the Taconic State Park Commission, who favored the prompt construction of a parkway through the Hudson Valley. Moses succeeded in diverting funds to his Long Island parkway projects (the Northern State Parkway, the Southern State Parkway and the Wantagh State Parkway), although the Taconic State Parkway was later completed as well.[6] Moses is frequently given credit as the father of the New York State Parkway System from these projects.
Jeff wrote:
Sorry, if not for State funds, the LIRR would have been a bus route in 1965. Read your history.
You don't know what would have been because it didn't happen; throw away that glass ball that you believe to be a crystal ball.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#18 Mar 26, 2009
LIRR Conductor wrote:
<quoted text>
you mean it would be more expensive.
even with the gov't money the MTA doesn't come close to making a profit, so how would removing gov't money and privatizing make it profitable? the reason the MTA was created was because the former owners of the LIRR (pennsylvania RR) went bankrupt.
No. It would not be more expensive; it is government and all its unnecessary overhead that makes it expensive.

When the former owners went bankrupt, the government didn't have to take it over; it could have been sold at auction to another private company that would run it more efficiently. That is what capitalism is all about; progressive quality and efficiency.
LIRR Conductor wrote:
privatizing means that the company could triple your fares and nobody would have any say in it.
If they did that, they would go bankrupt and then a new owner would buy out their assets and charge what the free market will bare.

The government could charge any amount they want. They could hire as many do-nothing workers as they want and run it as inefficiently as they want. Even if much fewer people take the train, they won't go out of business because they will get their funds elsewhere. A private company has to maximize their profits and the only way to do that is to fill every seat. If they charge too much, they won't fill every seat. They can't just charge outragous prices because they would go out of business pretty quickly. If you don't understand why, you need to take a business course.
LIRR Conductor

Bronx, NY

#19 Mar 26, 2009
libubble wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It would not be more expensive; it is government and all its unnecessary overhead that makes it expensive.
When the former owners went bankrupt, the government didn't have to take it over; it could have been sold at auction to another private company that would run it more efficiently. That is what capitalism is all about; progressive quality and efficiency.
<quoted text>
If they did that, they would go bankrupt and then a new owner would buy out their assets and charge what the free market will bare.
The government could charge any amount they want. They could hire as many do-nothing workers as they want and run it as inefficiently as they want. Even if much fewer people take the train, they won't go out of business because they will get their funds elsewhere. A private company has to maximize their profits and the only way to do that is to fill every seat. If they charge too much, they won't fill every seat. They can't just charge outragous prices because they would go out of business pretty quickly. If you don't understand why, you need to take a business course.
sold to another company?? you haven't studied the history of the Pennsylvania, New York Central and New Haven RR demise. there weren't exactly a line of buyers waiting to scoop up the pennsy or the NYC or the NHRR. in fact they all merged into one Giant RR, The Penn Central, which only lasted a few years before itself went bankrupt. if it wasn't for the Gov getting involved, by creating Amtrak and the MTA the railroads would have ceased to exist. there was no long line of buyers waiting to lose their money. the fare they charge now doesn't come close to covering expenses, a good business needs to charge a price that will cover the expense of transporting its passengers, without outside help thats a huge burden on the riders. this is why the private RR's all went belly up in the 60's.
you could run the most efficient RR in the world, but i don't think charging every rider say $6.00 to go from ronkonkoma to NYC would bring in enough revenue to keep the RR profitable even if EVERY seat was filled on every train.
LIRR Conductor

Bronx, NY

#20 Mar 26, 2009
libubble wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It would not be more expensive; it is government and all its unnecessary overhead that makes it expensive.
When the former owners went bankrupt, the government didn't have to take it over; it could have been sold at auction to another private company that would run it more efficiently. That is what capitalism is all about; progressive quality and efficiency.
<quoted text>
If they did that, they would go bankrupt and then a new owner would buy out their assets and charge what the free market will bare.
The government could charge any amount they want. They could hire as many do-nothing workers as they want and run it as inefficiently as they want. Even if much fewer people take the train, they won't go out of business because they will get their funds elsewhere. A private company has to maximize their profits and the only way to do that is to fill every seat. If they charge too much, they won't fill every seat. They can't just charge outragous prices because they would go out of business pretty quickly. If you don't understand why, you need to take a business course.
also, i think a private company would quickly realize that there is no "free market" with regard to RR transportation on Long Island, as there is no "market". its one RR, that isn't a market, its a monopoly. they would realize, as the MTA has, that they could charge any price they want to because an X number of people will always take the train, they essentially can hold them hostage. you can either fill every seat with dirt cheap fares, or fill every other seat but just charge each passenger double, since half of the riders will probably take the train no matter what it works out either way.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#21 Mar 26, 2009
LIRR Conductor wrote:
<quoted text>
sold to another company?? you haven't studied the history of the Pennsylvania, New York Central and New Haven RR demise. there weren't exactly a line of buyers waiting to scoop up the pennsy or the NYC or the NHRR. in fact they all merged into one Giant RR, The Penn Central, which only lasted a few years before itself went bankrupt. if it wasn't for the Gov getting involved, by creating Amtrak and the MTA the railroads would have ceased to exist. there was no long line of buyers waiting to lose their money. the fare they charge now doesn't come close to covering expenses, a good business needs to charge a price that will cover the expense of transporting its passengers, without outside help thats a huge burden on the riders. this is why the private RR's all went belly up in the 60's.
you could run the most efficient RR in the world, but i don't think charging every rider say $6.00 to go from ronkonkoma to NYC would bring in enough revenue to keep the RR profitable even if EVERY seat was filled on every train.
No. I haven't studied them in particular, but I did study free market economics.

Did they auction off the assets to the highest bidder back then? I bet if they did, they would find a buyer. If they let GM go under and it went to a bankruptcy auction, we would have new management running it and they would actually be profitable; but the government didn't let that happen.

Back then, railroads were much smaller than they are now. There are many more seats on the trains (two levels as well) and the power efficiency is better than it was back then. If the money that the riders pay doesn't cover the costs and produce a profit, then the train does not make economic sense and should not exist; perhaps there should be more buses instead.

How many seats are there on the LIRR anyway?

Why should the public subsidize the cost of a train if many people never take or benefit from the train? This goes against the principals of the founding fathers.

“www.longislandbu bble.com”

Since: Jan 07

Long Island

#22 Mar 26, 2009
LIRR Conductor wrote:
<quoted text>
also, i think a private company would quickly realize that there is no "free market" with regard to RR transportation on Long Island, as there is no "market". its one RR, that isn't a market, its a monopoly. they would realize, as the MTA has, that they could charge any price they want to because an X number of people will always take the train, they essentially can hold them hostage. you can either fill every seat with dirt cheap fares, or fill every other seat but just charge each passenger double, since half of the riders will probably take the train no matter what it works out either way.
If it was too expensive, many people would stop taking the train. In fact, they could all agree and boycott the train for a few weeks and start taking it again after it is sold at auction to the next owner. You can have a monopoly on a train, but you can't have a monopoly on public transportation. People can elect to boycott a train longer than the owner can remain solvent.
LIRR Conductor

Bronx, NY

#23 Mar 26, 2009
libubble wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I haven't studied them in particular, but I did study free market economics.
Did they auction off the assets to the highest bidder back then? I bet if they did, they would find a buyer. If they let GM go under and it went to a bankruptcy auction, we would have new management running it and they would actually be profitable; but the government didn't let that happen.
Back then, railroads were much smaller than they are now. There are many more seats on the trains (two levels as well) and the power efficiency is better than it was back then. If the money that the riders pay doesn't cover the costs and produce a profit, then the train does not make economic sense and should not exist; perhaps there should be more buses instead.
How many seats are there on the LIRR anyway?
Why should the public subsidize the cost of a train if many people never take or benefit from the train? This goes against the principals of the founding fathers.
you're missing the point, if there were auctions, there would have been no bidders, no one in there right mind would buy one the old RR's just to lose all their money the first day.
they were a disaster. i doubt the gov't wanted to get involved either just to lose its money also, but politics forced them to keep the trains moving.
and back then the RR's were much much bigger, they covered a lot more of the country than they do now.
LIRR Conductor

Bronx, NY

#24 Mar 26, 2009
libubble wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was too expensive, many people would stop taking the train. In fact, they could all agree and boycott the train for a few weeks and start taking it again after it is sold at auction to the next owner. You can have a monopoly on a train, but you can't have a monopoly on public transportation. People can elect to boycott a train longer than the owner can remain solvent.
there will ALWAYS be a certain amount of riders, believe it or not most people are not so poor that they couldn't afford a $10 or $20 train ticket. in fact, it would probably be nice, less crowds on the train, a higher quality of commuter. it could be a blessing in disguise. since when does public transportation have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
if we are lucky they would be able to close wyandanch because no one will be able to afford to ride the train from there, lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transportation Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gordon Pape: A railway stock that's steaming ahead Jan 16 Liteone 1
News Small plane missing in eastern Tennessee Jan 15 Farton Steddly 13
News Teddy bear takes Detroit airport adventure afte... Jan 12 Spotted Girl 8
Does anybody work for USPS I have a Question (Jul '09) Jan 10 yesyou 54
News Northwest, baggage handler impasse heads to judge (May '06) Jan 5 jcr 99
News Ford Decision Cements Mexico as 'Front Line' fo... Jan 3 tomin cali 1
News The Latest: President Obama wishes crowd Merry ... Dec 27 huntcoyotes 8
More from around the web