|
|
| Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece (537189) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (538052) | |
Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Dec 21 13:23:52 2007, in response to Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece, posted by Russ on Fri Dec 21 13:21:40 2007. How would you reduce MTA's debt service? |
|
|
| (538089) | |
Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Dec 21 13:42:57 2007, in response to Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Dec 21 13:23:52 2007. I don't know how the existing bonds are valued by the market, but I doubt that with the current subprime crisis that the MTA can pull off a refinancing scheme.For existing debt service - which is about to increase, it simply has to paid off. For future bond issues, I'd hold back when times are good from major capital projects that can be deferred, and borrow when interest rates are lower. The MTA would also get construction projects executed for far less than for what they are currently paying in the middle of a global construction boom. The problem with this is that it requires a level of fiscal discipline that does not seem viable when subjected to demagogic populism. The MTA would really needs to be able to build somewhat of a rainy day fund to cover debt service during an economic slowdown, and then when the economy picks up, increased revenue will pay off the bonds. This is a spin on Keynesism, but it seems to me to be the best route. |
|
|
| (538111) | |
Re: Daily News hammers fare hike |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Fri Dec 21 13:58:41 2007, in response to Re: Daily News hammers fare hike, posted by Railman718 on Fri Dec 21 00:14:56 2007. We do get a great deal for the price. Service is more frequent on some lines at some hours than it was. Still, I can think of a few of areas that definitely need improvement.First, of course, is bus service, as has been mentioned by you and others. Second, scheduled run times on the subway are longer than they were decades ago. (This was mentioned somewhere in the thread that compared service to 1966.) There are a number of reasons for this including safety concerns. More frequent service, including CBTC, can make up for this with respect to passenger trip times, but the reality is the subways are slower than they used to be. Finally, the transit system is a victim of its own success, particularly the unlimited ride Metrocard, and are too crowded too often, not only in the rush hours but also middays, on the shoulders of the peak hours, and even into the evening and on weekends. Simply put, we need more frequent service on many line. Again, in the long run, CBTC will help. The solutions cost money, of course. I'm not saying we don't have a good system at a good price but rather that as riders, we should be demanding more of the powers that be. The Daily News's "campaign" may be a self-serving "fire Isiah"-type of effort to sell papers, but, like the efforts of the Strappies and the Working Families Party to save the fare, could serve to get some cash infusion from Albany or City Hall that can only lead to better service. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (538180) | |
Re: Daily News hammers fare hike |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Dec 21 14:56:43 2007, in response to Re: Daily News hammers fare hike, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Fri Dec 21 03:53:41 2007. I prefer the privacy and comfort of my own car that I'm willing to endure bumper-bumper for it. The only thing that would get me to use mass transit is cost and time. |
|
|
| (538271) | |
Re: Daily News hammers fare hike |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Dec 21 18:35:22 2007, in response to Re: Daily News hammers fare hike, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Fri Dec 21 13:58:41 2007. Agreed Good post... |
|
|
| (538280) | |
Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Fri Dec 21 18:54:28 2007, in response to Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece, posted by Russ on Fri Dec 21 07:01:40 2007. Paying for a high percentage of operations out of the farebox is bad policy, in my opinion, especially when the expense budget includes all of the Pataki/Conway/Kalikow debt service. There are external benefits of public transit that are not captured by the rider, public goods of reduced congestion and and pollution and added economic activity. Therefore, I believe that society, through government, should subsidize transit and I don't think we do it sufficiently in New York. And, the fact is we subsidize cars and trucks by building roads and highways, mostly untolled except for fuel taxes. We subsidize air travel. I just think we don't subsidize transit enough and I'm happy to use the Daily News to try to leverage some more money out the of the City and State.I think it's great that Sander wants Albany to ante up for the capital program. But, that won't do anything about the billions of debt that we have to pay back on MTA bonds in the past decade or so. In 1997, debt service cost the MTA $170 million. When I last researched this, for the 2004-05 budget cycle, the MTA was expecting to pay $1.7 billion in debt service in 2007, this after refinancing debt when interest rates his 40 year lows. And, I believe we paid for I-86 with a mix of federal and state money and, IIRC, possibly from a transportation bond act, so I think the state paid. I cold be wrong, but I do know that the taxpayers of the state of New York are paying for considerable state highway capital construction costs that were not from toll-backed bonds. But, delay the fare increase until July without new money? That's just bad policy since we will need a higher fare increase just to end up even in the end. |
|
|
| (538309) | |
Re: Daily News hammers fare hike |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 21 21:41:39 2007, in response to Re: Daily News hammers fare hike, posted by Railman718 on Fri Dec 21 00:14:56 2007. Well, the system should be made an example of efficiency...and that it needs a LOT of help in. |
|
|
| (538313) | |
Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Fri Dec 21 22:01:26 2007, in response to Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece, posted by Russ on Fri Dec 21 13:42:57 2007. It is my understanding that the MTA refinanced earlier in the decade when interests first hit 30 year lows, so there is not a lot of savings to be had if they go down again. And, with the laundry list of construction projects, not just state-of-good-repair renovations, in the offing, I don't see the state coming in and agreeing to take any of the debt off of the MTA's hands.I like the idea of borrowing when money is cheapest and building when construction is down and there will be more competitions for bids. But, that will never happen. |
|
|
| (538315) | |
Re: Daily News hammers fare hike |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Dec 21 22:07:47 2007, in response to Re: Daily News hammers fare hike, posted by Russ on Fri Dec 21 12:49:10 2007. This is their proposed toll schedule. |
|
|
| (538699) | |
Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Dec 22 15:51:55 2007, in response to Re: Daily News Demagogic Fare Hike Piece, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Fri Dec 21 18:54:28 2007. The reason why I support paying for a higher percentage of the operational budget with fares is sustainability. If fares are highly dependent on year-to-year budget allocations from various governments, what happens in an economic downturn? Dedicated funding sources can help here, but only if they are fairly immune economic cycles.How would you formulate a 10 year plan for the MTA with fares that are more heavily subsidized? How would this impact the capital budget? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
