|
|
| Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill (1645580) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1645580) | |
Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 12:38:47 2025 Hochul Will Veto Controversial Bill Mandating Two Operators [sic] on Most Subway Trains |
|
|
| (1645581) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 13:20:31 2025, in response to Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 12:38:47 2025. The veto is official, as reported by NY1.It was obvious she would veto it since the day it was placed on her desk. IDK how this works, but was it a conspiracy that she sat on it so long so that the veto can't be over ridden if the 2025 legislative session is over? How does that work? Bruce Blakeman would veto it too! Any governor would because safety always gets defeated by money. If the contract in May expands OPTO to regular lines like the L for instance, I will have something further to say then. |
|
|
| (1645582) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 14:10:27 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 13:20:31 2025. This has nothing to do with safety. There is no reason to enshrine this into statute.The safety issue is overblown. Cars drive themselves now, trains on fixed tracks can’t? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1645583) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Sat Dec 20 14:21:32 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 14:10:27 2025. Right, and anyway this issue has always been subject to collective bargaining. No statute need interfere. |
|
|
| (1645584) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 14:25:07 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Italianstallion on Sat Dec 20 14:21:32 2025. Right. Failing to enact this doesn’t mean that the subway goes full OPTO. Conductors are going to be around for a hwhile. |
|
|
| (1645586) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sat Dec 20 16:37:35 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 13:20:31 2025. There is a gentleman's agreement between New York governors and New York Senate leaders: Senate leaders do not transmit passed legislation until the Governor assents to it, preventing the clock from running on legislation becoming law automatically. Presumably the Governor could veto any legislation they didn't assent to being transmitted, but there's no legal reason for this. |
|
|
| (1645588) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Allen45 on Sat Dec 20 17:29:13 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 13:20:31 2025. Hochul is beholden to the urbanists who not only hate cars but hate working class people except when to use them as props with no agency! |
|
|
| (1645590) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 18:20:21 2025, in response to Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 12:38:47 2025. 
|
|
|
| (1645591) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 18:24:37 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Allen45 on Sat Dec 20 17:29:13 2025. THIS is your conclusion from this?The MTA is not a make-work organization like the old WPA. Of course this is a pro-urban action as it helps the subway remain modern and efficient in the future. It seems that you’d rather your taxpayer money be used to pay for a 472 station museum while you stay away from the city housing it. |
|
|
| (1645592) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 18:25:21 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sat Dec 20 16:37:35 2025. I’m not sure what the conspiracy is. If she had only 10 days to do this veto, she could have done so then. |
|
|
| (1645593) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 20 20:27:52 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 18:20:21 2025. the way it was worded, it would have done away with current OPTO lines like Franklin and Rockaway Park and Dyre.Janno Lieber and another executive recently addressed the OPTO topic on News 12 and probably on NY1 as well. They said NYCT is behind the times, citing more than 90% of subway systems are OPTO. |
|
|
| (1645594) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 20 20:44:52 2025, in response to Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 12:38:47 2025. I wonder what NYCT will finally do with conductors?My guess is they will be phased out. First by shift, with the midnights being first. Lines with the lowest ridership that don't go through the central business district will also be considered first. Like the J on midnights. Roving conductors or gap station personnel during rush-hour is something they'll consider. |
|
|
| (1645595) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 21:29:36 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Displaced Angeleno on Sat Dec 20 16:37:35 2025. She was presented with the bill several months ago and waits till almost Christmas to veto it.Why didn't she veto it right away? |
|
|
| (1645596) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 21:37:36 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 18:24:37 2025. I can hardly wait for the first long delay when an 8 car OPTO train in the rush hour has a door problem in the 8th car which the train operator can't overcome. He discharges passengers and works his way back to his position and closes the doors. Now he has to walk all the way back again to make sure nobody got back on. Then he goes back to the front to move the train. If he had a conductor, this process would have taken half the time.But this is what Hochul and MTA wants. Have fun. I'll just sit back and laugh. |
|
|
| (1645598) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Dec 20 21:45:44 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 14:10:27 2025. I've often wondered about what examples in recent times there have been of someone's life/health/property being protected thanks to the train crew - examples that would likely have meant added loss if there was just a state-of-the-art ZPTO operation instead. |
|
|
| (1645599) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 22:02:48 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 20 20:44:52 2025. They would be eliminated by attrition which would take 20 years to accomplish.IMO in the B Division the G and L would start being OPTO 24/7 followed by the J since these lines do not interfere with other lines for the most part. Then the C. Good luck to the t/o getting everybody off at 168 & Euclid. After that the M, then the B. And so on till there are no more conductors on the road. Picking a job will suck more and more as time goes on. The train operators better get an increase in that paltry $5.00 per hour OPTO pay. I will feel sorry for the new train operators who have to play conductor too. NYCT will have lots of problems retaining t/o's. I'd like to see Kathy Hochul do all that. OPTO in NYC is a lot different here than in Boston or Philadelphia due to the length of trains (see above) and the heavier ridership. IDK what happens in those cities when there is a BIE, but here when the t/o is on the roadbed, nobody crew member will be on the train with all those people. But this is what they want and the control center will be screaming at the t/o's to hurry up from their ivory tower |
|
|
| (1645600) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 22:09:07 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 22:02:48 2025. They’ll pay them what the market can bear. |
|
|
| (1645601) | |
Re: Increased running time? |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Dec 20 22:30:09 2025, in response to Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 12:38:47 2025. Regardless of the other considerations, won't OPTO increase running time, because the t/o has to apply the brake in full, then get up (and maybe cross sides) and open the window, insert the key, and open the doors. Then after closing the doors, they have to get back in the seat and release the brakes. How much extra time would that be over 20 or 30 stops? The current G schedule shows that a rush-hour trip (with a two-person crew) takes about 36-37 minutes end to end. How long would it take with OPTO? |
|
|
| (1645602) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Dec 20 22:31:38 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 22:09:07 2025. CTA talked heir union into OPTO on the Evanston-Howard shuttle in return for maintaining convenient short headways. No workers lost jobs; the 1-50 series PCC type L cars had fareboxes adjacent the operator's chair. In this instance, a single car was sufficvient for late hour ridership. |
|
|
| (1645603) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 22:31:42 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 21:29:36 2025. It wasn’t delivered to her until December 8. So she couldn’t veto it until then.And Displaced Angeleno appeared to explain why it took them so damn long to do so. |
|
|
| (1645604) | |
Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 22:41:18 2025, in response to Re: Hochul will veto anti-OPTO TWU rent-seeking bill, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 20 21:37:36 2025. Nirvana fallacy.The general cost savings probably justify the extra five minute delays that would occasionally occur. |
|
|
| (1645605) | |
Re: Increased running time? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 20 22:43:44 2025, in response to Re: Increased running time?, posted by gbs on Sat Dec 20 22:30:09 2025. won't OPTO increase running time, because the t/o has to apply the brake in full, then get up (and maybe cross sides) and open the window, insert the key, and open the doors.It should increase running time, but when it was tested on the L, they found that it stayed the same or decreased time. There were reasons for this and I think a few here can explain how this happened. |
|
|
| (1645606) | |
Re: Increased running time? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Dec 20 22:45:40 2025, in response to Re: Increased running time?, posted by gbs on Sat Dec 20 22:30:09 2025. Wouldn’t you be able to compare a rush hour G trip with a weekend G trip? |
|
|
