4 ms·

Does anyone have answer as to why MTA is a financial mess and a single elevator project costs $81 mln[1] ? Congestion pricing seems like a pathetic attempt to

by slt2021 2y ago

Does anyone have answer as to why MTA is a financial mess and a single elevator project costs $81 mln[1] ? Congestion pricing seems like a pathetic attempt to squeeze money to fund bloated MTA salaries and bogus overtime[2]. that just eats MTA's budget. Widely cited $15 bln budget hole is roughly comparable to the decade of bogus $1.4 bln overtime that MTA workers accrue Transit agency must go through a deep and thorough cleanup and restructuring of its finances, before it demands more funding from taxpayers Same like city of San Fransicko spent $24 Bln with a B with nothing to show for it, arguably situation got only worse[3], while nonprofit and homeless industrial complex only got record funding and record fraud charges 1. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/mta-elevators-are-the-perfect-example-of-new-yorks-cost-problems.html 2. https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/blog/55017643/op-ed-excessive-mta-employee-overtime-continues-year-after-year 3. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-homelessness-spending-audit-24b-five-years-didnt-consistently-track-outcomes/

returningfory2 2y ago
On the one hand, this is a reasonable point to make and I think it's partially why the political support for congestion pricing wasn't there. On the other hand, in reality, making new transit funding conditional on the MTA cleaning up all its inefficiencies and corruptions will simply translate into transit being underfunded.
- slt2021 2y ago
  It is unsustainable to keep squandering taxpayer money and demanding more and more resources with worse and worse results. Private sector would never have allowed it
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    If you think the private sector would have prevented this, you should probably read a bit about the pre-NYCT history of the IRT and BMT :-) Nobody has every really successfully monetized this kind of mass transit in the US; it's a service that taxpayers fund in exchange for its enormous economic benefits. TFA explains this upfront: NYC would be nowhere near as big and prosperous as it is today were it not possible for millions of people to take trains into the city.
    - slt2021 2y ago
      The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs. I see none of this happening. Airlines seem to have no problem fixing their finances and their bankruptcy arguably made them only better
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        > The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs. I see none of this happening. Again: please read the history of the IRT and BMT. I think you'll find that "cut and restructure" is not an unknown practice in the history of NYC's mass transit, and that it didn't have the effects you're thinking it might. > Airlines seem to have no problem fixing their finances and their bankruptcy arguably made them only better Airlines are famous for receiving large federal subsidies to keep them afloat.
      - FridgeSeal 2y ago
        Have you taken a plane lately? lol. Airlines: notorious for over booking, running down planes on maintenance schedules, failing to pay staff properly, providing increasingly worse service to passengers whilst simultaneously jacking up prices, Airlines in my country had to be bailed out over COVID, they’ll leverage the full power of their bottom line to prevent new airlines from entering their market and competing with them, have been caught adjusting (read, increasing) prices on customers based on device and browsing habits. Airlines are close to the worst example I’d have given for “can do things better”. Basically the only reason plane travel is as safe as it is, is because governments had to get the regulation stick out and force them to do the right thing. > The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs The private sector would fire people, make everyone else do triple the work, increase costs for consumers, do even less maintenance if they could get away with it, and exit with a fat check the first chance they can.
        slt2021 2y ago
        airlines used bankruptcy to restructure their finances and liabilities, my argument is MTA must go through deep clean as well, before even thinking about extra $ of taxpayer money. most importantly people must be changed to more qualified, with less greasy palms, fewer connections to corrupt contractors and political connections
  - timbo1642 2y ago
    [dead]
  - sandwitches 2y ago
    [dead]
  - willyt 2y ago
    It sounds like it’s an issue with political accountability in that it’s unclear who’s in charge and what the hierarchy is and therefore what the priorities are and who’s responsible for implementing them. Transport for London is government run and it is unique in the world in that it is entirely self funding for operating expenses so it’s pretty efficient but it is expensive to use and suffers from overcrowding. An equivalent to a journey from Coney island to Grand central costs about $12 for a single trip or $100 for a week or $4000 per year if you buy an annual ticket. We also have a congestion charge which is about $18 but you will probably pay more than that per hour to park anywhere in the zone in any case.
woodruffw 2y ago
Because it doesn't: the $81M is to make an entire station ADA compliant, not to install a single elevator. This is still more than it should cost, but it's important to have the facts straight. The larger answer to the MTA's financial mess is multitudinous: 1. It's really 5+ independent transport systems folded into one big, unwieldy authority. Some of those systems (particularly the LIRR and MNRR, but not NYCT) are famous for overtime fraud[1]. 2. NYCT runs 24/7, which means that maintenance operations need to happen at night or other overtime periods. That means higher baseline costs for labor. 3. The MTA intentionally under-hires, under the financial theory that overtime pay is more sustainable than more heads on the 20-year pension pipeline. 4. Any amount of capital development on the subway is fundamentally expensive, both due to the age of the system, the complexity of the infrastructure that's developed around it, the need to minimize disruption to the rest of the system and city, etc. The MTA has repeatedly opted for bigger, more expensive capital programs that minimize disruption throughout the city, with the SAS's extremely deep tunnels being a good example of this. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/highest-paid-mta-employee-2018-sentenced-8-months-overtime-fraud-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/highest-paid-mta-employ...
- slt2021 2y ago
  MTA finances are unsustainable if they demand bailout and try to hide it under the label of "congestion pricing". If you look at what CP advocates say: it is all about ecology, emissions, congestion, freeing up the road for cyclists, etc. Some people mention MTA capital projects and ADA compliance, etc. But no CP advocate has actually and honestly told the truth: MTA is underwater, its finances, collective bargaining agreement is unsustainable, fraud is rampant, without this extra tax they will simply go bankrupt. This is the clearest case of mismanagement and dishonest communication with the taxpayers. CP funding should go directly to the city, and any capital MTA funding should come from loans that are repayable (either via additional citywide tax/tolls/fares/City general fund/etc). You can't keep throwing good money after bad money into this financial black hole
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    The congestion pricing fees were slated to go into capital programs, not operations. So that would be a very weird way for the MTA to attempt to hide their unsustainability, given that the money wouldn't be available for operational costs. I don't particularly disagree about the city deserving the money instead. But that would have to come with MTA giving NYCT back to the city, and that is unlikely to happen.

returningfory2 2y ago

On the one hand, this is a reasonable point to make and I think it's partially why the political support for congestion pricing wasn't there. On the other hand, in reality, making new transit funding conditional on the MTA cleaning up all its inefficiencies and corruptions will simply translate into transit being underfunded.

slt2021 2y ago
It is unsustainable to keep squandering taxpayer money and demanding more and more resources with worse and worse results. Private sector would never have allowed it
- woodruffw 2y ago
  If you think the private sector would have prevented this, you should probably read a bit about the pre-NYCT history of the IRT and BMT :-) Nobody has every really successfully monetized this kind of mass transit in the US; it's a service that taxpayers fund in exchange for its enormous economic benefits. TFA explains this upfront: NYC would be nowhere near as big and prosperous as it is today were it not possible for millions of people to take trains into the city.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs. I see none of this happening. Airlines seem to have no problem fixing their finances and their bankruptcy arguably made them only better
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      > The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs. I see none of this happening. Again: please read the history of the IRT and BMT. I think you'll find that "cut and restructure" is not an unknown practice in the history of NYC's mass transit, and that it didn't have the effects you're thinking it might. > Airlines seem to have no problem fixing their finances and their bankruptcy arguably made them only better Airlines are famous for receiving large federal subsidies to keep them afloat.
    - FridgeSeal 2y ago
      Have you taken a plane lately? lol. Airlines: notorious for over booking, running down planes on maintenance schedules, failing to pay staff properly, providing increasingly worse service to passengers whilst simultaneously jacking up prices, Airlines in my country had to be bailed out over COVID, they’ll leverage the full power of their bottom line to prevent new airlines from entering their market and competing with them, have been caught adjusting (read, increasing) prices on customers based on device and browsing habits. Airlines are close to the worst example I’d have given for “can do things better”. Basically the only reason plane travel is as safe as it is, is because governments had to get the regulation stick out and force them to do the right thing. > The private sector would ruthlessly fire people, cut and restructure costs The private sector would fire people, make everyone else do triple the work, increase costs for consumers, do even less maintenance if they could get away with it, and exit with a fat check the first chance they can.
      - slt2021 2y ago
        airlines used bankruptcy to restructure their finances and liabilities, my argument is MTA must go through deep clean as well, before even thinking about extra $ of taxpayer money. most importantly people must be changed to more qualified, with less greasy palms, fewer connections to corrupt contractors and political connections
- timbo1642 2y ago
  [dead]
- sandwitches 2y ago
  [dead]
- willyt 2y ago
  It sounds like it’s an issue with political accountability in that it’s unclear who’s in charge and what the hierarchy is and therefore what the priorities are and who’s responsible for implementing them. Transport for London is government run and it is unique in the world in that it is entirely self funding for operating expenses so it’s pretty efficient but it is expensive to use and suffers from overcrowding. An equivalent to a journey from Coney island to Grand central costs about $12 for a single trip or $100 for a week or $4000 per year if you buy an annual ticket. We also have a congestion charge which is about $18 but you will probably pay more than that per hour to park anywhere in the zone in any case.

woodruffw 2y ago

Because it doesn't: the $81M is to make an entire station ADA compliant, not to install a single elevator. This is still more than it should cost, but it's important to have the facts straight. The larger answer to the MTA's financial mess is multitudinous: 1. It's really 5+ independent transport systems folded into one big, unwieldy authority. Some of those systems (particularly the LIRR and MNRR, but not NYCT) are famous for overtime fraud[1]. 2. NYCT runs 24/7, which means that maintenance operations need to happen at night or other overtime periods. That means higher baseline costs for labor. 3. The MTA intentionally under-hires, under the financial theory that overtime pay is more sustainable than more heads on the 20-year pension pipeline. 4. Any amount of capital development on the subway is fundamentally expensive, both due to the age of the system, the complexity of the infrastructure that's developed around it, the need to minimize disruption to the rest of the system and city, etc. The MTA has repeatedly opted for bigger, more expensive capital programs that minimize disruption throughout the city, with the SAS's extremely deep tunnels being a good example of this. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/highest-paid-mta-employee-2018-sentenced-8-months-overtime-fraud-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/highest-paid-mta-employ...

slt2021 2y ago
MTA finances are unsustainable if they demand bailout and try to hide it under the label of "congestion pricing". If you look at what CP advocates say: it is all about ecology, emissions, congestion, freeing up the road for cyclists, etc. Some people mention MTA capital projects and ADA compliance, etc. But no CP advocate has actually and honestly told the truth: MTA is underwater, its finances, collective bargaining agreement is unsustainable, fraud is rampant, without this extra tax they will simply go bankrupt. This is the clearest case of mismanagement and dishonest communication with the taxpayers. CP funding should go directly to the city, and any capital MTA funding should come from loans that are repayable (either via additional citywide tax/tolls/fares/City general fund/etc). You can't keep throwing good money after bad money into this financial black hole
- woodruffw 2y ago
  The congestion pricing fees were slated to go into capital programs, not operations. So that would be a very weird way for the MTA to attempt to hide their unsustainability, given that the money wouldn't be available for operational costs. I don't particularly disagree about the city deserving the money instead. But that would have to come with MTA giving NYCT back to the city, and that is unlikely to happen.