MHV9218

9 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The reason for the early retirement of the Orion 7 OG Hybrids and why they won't keep them for longer is because they have old hybrid technology.

Basically, those buses use an old version of the hybrid system which isn't really efficient and is extremely difficult to keep maintaining since parts wear out fast. Its getting to the point where simply retiring is saving money then keeping them going. 

And another thing: most of the routes that are operated by Orion 7 OG's aren't good enough to actually make the old hybrid technology work, since routes are a mix of stop and go traffic, etc etc.

Definitely right that the application of the hybrids wasn't always right route-wise, but do you know which parts exactly are failing? Obviously Orion itself is out of business, but BAE is obviously alive and well, as is Cummins, and you'd think they'd have some support capacity. And if were the acid batteries themselves, could always swap for lithium-ion packs like on 6401 etc. J

ust saying, crazier things have happened and I can't even remember an MTA order retired this quickly in years (exception the CNGs, which obviously have to go for their own reasons). I guess the 1996 D60s only got 14 years, but that's about it. Even the rotting, salt-ruined O5s made it longer lol.

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There is no argument. He argues with anyone who disagrees with what he has to say.  KingMHV9218...

Buddy, scroll back up like three posts. I just offered a comment about the bus fleet and you posted some petty "You would say that" comment.

Leaving this conversation, bored of it. If others have opinions about retiring the O7 fleet early I'd love to hear it.

5 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There is no argument. That's a fact, KingMHV9218. People do pay attention. They may not skip the bus unless it is in terrible shape, but if possible, yes, riders prefer newer buses. I have learned that when the topic has come up. I find it comical that you think this place with a small sampling of mainly transit fans is representative of how ALL passengers feel. Don't be ridiculous.

I would bet you all the money in the world that the vast majority of people waiting for a bus would take any bus over a new bus or their preferred bus or whatever. Yes, people like newer buses. Marginally. Not so much that they let other buses go by and just wait there. You know this.

Just now, Lawrence St said:

My lord do you two love arguing like a married couple...

All I did was say they shouldn't be retiring the OGs too fast. You can look at who started it. You're right, maybe the smart thing to do is just not respond, but...

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You would say that regardless. The average paying customer wants new fleet whenever possible, especially if they are cleaner, have better AC, seating, signage and other amenities, etc., myself included. I hated those RTS buses and were glad to see them go. 

Thank you for, as usual, starting an argument for nothing. The average paying customer wants any bus to show up. Retiring a third of the fleet without knowing you'll being able to fund their replacements is a good way to leave people standing in the rain. The O7 OG fleet is in excellent shape with functional AC, signage as clear as any new bus, and passenger capacity arguably better than the new fleet. Most people on this site know this. Besides, the RTSes were 23 years old in the case of the 1996s. The O7s are 13. Not a good comparison.

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Whatever does the job effectively, I'm all for it.

You sit back & read some of the comments in that reddit thread giving this guy props, talking about he deserves that free ride & shit... If I ever see someone attempting to do anything of the sort & it backfires on them, not only would I not wince at the end result, I would commence chuckling.... Won't be no ambalamps calling on my end.

Hey, my guy is an absolute fool, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I was a little impressed.

They should not be scrapping 13-14 y/o buses on the verge of this budget disaster, imo...

If we get our money, then we can start slicing the fleet. I know the flipside argument is that diminished service would mean a diminished fleet, but they also want to cut down the maintenance regimen, so I dunno...don't love the look of this.

3 hours ago, JAzumah said:

In the small chance that Biden becomes president,

You lost me on this one...

3 hours ago, JAzumah said:

If you started a negotiation for almost double what you needed, you would not be looked at as a serious person.

I don't think you should keep repeating this. What they need is the money to cover the deficit. That's $16b. They're asking for $12b, to get through the first couple years but not the last two. They could be asking for $16b! 

4 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

What did drivers on the street and coming off the exit do?

They went on the bike lane AND on that walking space between the lane and the rest of Queens Blvd.

There were at least 10 cars that were flying through that space, including a USPS truck that almost hit a cyclist, and countless cars that kept crushing those plastic barriers.

Those plastic barriers are just the worst. A biker actually got killed in Queens the other week cause a truck turned and drove over the barriers. They're a joke, the DOT knows they're a joke, and nobody can come up with a good reason why we have them. If it's for firetrucks, BS, the bike lane just replaces a line of parked cars which took up the same width. If it's for street sweepers, also BS, cities all over the country have smaller sweepers for pedestrian and biker paths. Just stubbornness for the sake of it at the DOT, and it makes these lanes such a waste.

On 11/27/2020 at 12:48 PM, Lance said:

 

@MHV9218 I believe there's a reason why there aren't many enamel CC signs floating around or captured on video, etc. The plan to eliminate the double-lettered routes was thought of way before 1985. The first batch of signs for the 16s - 38s after the trunk color redesign came out in 1981. This is the version that had the Broadway lines with white text on the signature sunflower yellow color. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan dated back to the Diamond Jubilee map design change, but wasn't implemented then due to budget concerns at the time. Too many trains were running with signs dating back to at least the Chrystie St connection, if not before. While the colors on some of those signs would be wrong when the trunk color design was put info effect, the route letters would still be the same if the double-lettered routes remained in operation.

In regards to some of these signs' longevity, the ones at out of the way stations tend to stick around for a while. There were a couple of old service signs on the Pelham line that lasted until the 2010s renovations. Sometimes, they stick around well after station renos, like this one at 59 St-Columbus Circle:

59 St-Columbus Circle (IND 8th Avenue) - 04/22/2018

Flickr: Coney Island Av

On another side-note, the reason behind some of the signs retaining their '67 colors well into the '80s was that it was close enough to the '79 design. There were plenty of gold N's scattered around with the teal E's. And if you looked close enough, one could find slightly different shades of A's and D's, but those were less noticeable since the '67 and '79 versions were almost the same.

That's a good point. I always forget how early those signs were printed without any double letters. As we know, even the R46s that ended up on the  received only sticker signs rather than new rolls. It would make sense that they didn't too much with permanent signage during those years of flux, particularly given the fact the system was a mess anyway. I went to my list to check for dates on those rolls, and while I didn't find a date for the white N-Q-R rolls, I do know the black N-Q-R rolls are dated 1984. And there are pictures of R38s wearing new rolls as early as winter 1983, so the white ones would probably date to 1982 or so. And you're right, not a trace of a double-lettered route on either of those rolls – they were definitely planning ahead.

I'm still mad I missed that 59th Street sign when it was briefly revealed. For what it's worth, a ton of those style signs (enamel attached to a steel mounting bar) are still in place, just covered by a couple years of new signs. That style was used beginning in the 1980s and into the 1990s, first with the 11" bullets and later with the new-style smaller bullets. Along QBL those signs are still in place with Standard text, just covered by a few metal signs. Along 7th and 8th Ave at some stations it's the same story with the newer later 1980s/1990s version of those signs, like that picture at 59th shows while they were doing replacements. And then there's the later-1990s style of enamel overhead signs that you see at a lot of lines still in place (for instance, 7th Ave on the  or 207th St. on the ).

I think the  kept its 1967 color until even later, actually. I read somewhere that the 1967 PMS300 bullet was carried over after 1979 color switch and used for the AA/CC/E, and later in the 80s they modified it to PMS 286 (the slightly lighter blue used today). Who knows why or when.

10 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Right, and in that same one, it shows about 3% of the accidents were actually caused by unsafe speed (even less than the percentage caused by pedestrian error). And driver inattention is the top cause, followed by failure to yield. 

The other thing is that I doubt in all of those cases, there was only one contributing factor for every single one of those 97 cases. (e.g. Unsafe speed and intoxication. You can maybe assume the person was driving fast because they were intoxicated, but that's not necessarily the case). 

Two things about that, though.

For one, small thing, it's very hard to prove unsafe speed without an officer witnessing the accident, which I would imagine depresses those numbers. But mainly, the reason the speed limit was lowered is not about the causes of accidents but the consequences. The relevant stat here is that pedestrian survival rates when hit by a car at 20mph are about 95%. A pedestrian hit by a car at 30mph has a 55% chance of survival. At 40mph, it's about 5%. If you assume drivers travel +5 mph over the limit when the roads are open, a 30mph limit on clear roads yields 35mph traveled speed. Obviously, people rarely get to get that kind of speed in traffic, but that's the DOT's logic. It's not about speed leading to accidents occurring, it's about what speed does when an accident does happen.

[Btw, there are a few different versions of this stat per different studies – some peg the threshold closer to 35mph, some lower.]

16 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Right, and that's my point. How many of those deaths are due to the pedestrian/bicyclist themselves doing something reckless? There was a rally a few months ago where a bicyclist ran a red light (at 1am) and was hit by a bus in Williamsburg. Transportation Alternatives was there and said "Oh look at how people park in the bike lane in that area". That may be true, but that has absolutely nothing to do with that woman's death. 

In another Streetsblog article, they showed a snapshot of a bicyclist before he rode into the path of a right-turning truck, and they complain that the driver wasn't charged criminally. In the picture it looks like the bicyclist is trying to beat the truck to the intersection (and as you know, trucks have huge blind spots). 

Obviously we know that the primary purpose of Vision Zero was for pedestrians/bicylists. Nobody is disputing that. But again, it applies to both sides. Motor vehicle operators shouldn't be reckless with other people's lives but bicyclists/pedestrians shouldn't be reckless with their own lives.

It would be more responsible to use actual statistics rather than anecdotes here.

According to the NYPD's numbers, pedestrian or biker error was cited in less than 5% of fatal accidents last year. These accidents are primarily caused by drivers, point blank. The trope that 'bikers and pedestrians are at fault' has been disproven by police statistics year in and year out.

For what it's worth, I drive in the city. I own a car, and I drive for work. The first six months of the year, I was driving a box truck or converted van 12 hours a day. You see a lot on these streets. I'm aware of the recklessness of bikers and pedestrians. Believe me that I didn't appreciate it driving a commercial vehicle without windows. But I also witness an incredible number of reckless drivers failing to yield or blowing lights on a daily basis. I constantly see cars cut off bikers, people open doors into the bike lane, taxis stop short, texting drivers not paying attention. If we're just doing pure anecdotes, I would say that the worst drivers far and away are Uber/Lyft drivers, who are even more reckless than cabbies since they believe it's their right to stop anywhere on the street. But that's just personal opinion.

8 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Thank you so much for you analysis. You really need to write something up about the history of subway signs.

You can see the C pasted over the diamond C, the spot where the K used to be, the 1/9 bullet

Hey, Paul Shaw wrote the quite literal book on that – I just follow up with my observations! 

These are more great finds. There was a large batch of signs produced around 1985 for station entrances, specifically along the 8th Ave with the  and  services. They were all porcelain enamel and Akzidenz-Grotesk, and a few are still in place, though covered by newer signs. They were all very quickly out of date, as you can see from the photos, since the was out of service within three years, and most of the  became the  again. Interestingly, I'm not actually aware of any enamel entrance signs produced with the blue (AA) service between 1979-1985. There may have been some sheet metal signs, but I've only really seen photos with stickers. After the ~1985 batch, it was again a few years before new enamel signs were cast. By then the font was Helvetica. 

I poked through your Flickr after seeing these. The photo below answers a question of mine – exactly how long were the Vignelli overhead signs up for? I knew it was into the 1990s, but this proves it was as late as 1994. This is actually a 10-foot Vignelli sign made of black-on-white modular segments entirely covered by stickers. The original sign included the pink AA and . Chambers through 14th received these Vignelli signs around spring 1969 – impressive to see how long they were up for. 

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's the problem, that there's a lot more to it than "Speed kills" and "Fast = Bad". There's reckless behavior on both sides (for example, bicyclists who run red lights or drive against traffic, pedestrians who jaywalk in clearly dangerous situations, or cross without looking both ways, and then distracted drivers who aren't paying attention and get into accidents, and then the super-aggressive drivers who do last-minute lane changes without signaling. 

While I agree with you that there are a lot of nuances to it, there is a specific logic to the lower speed limits, in that a person hit at 25mph has significantly better changes of survival than somebody hit at 30mph. And as for pedestrians jaywalking/bikers running lights, sure, but those are an order of magnitude below bad drivers, who can actually kill people. Maybe one person is killed by a bike every 2-3 years. But there were 121 pedestrian deaths last year due to cars and 28 bikers killed by cars. So the 'both sides' argument is only true to a degree.

This is great material. Good idea going to the film archives – those sites have lots of quality stuff. I had no idea how long those original Vignelli signs at 42nd Street were up. This is a clear shot (I did not take) of what they looked like originally. You can see they're the original Vignelli style (no white stripe, black arrow on white) and done exactly to his spec in the manual. They're also enamel, which is notable, though the crooked lettering of the bullets suggests individual stickers for at least the F bullet. You can see in the later pic that the D is covered by a JFK Express bullet and probably reordered.

Those 2/5 signs are interesting. They're clearly trying to stick to the 1x1 module format while trying out new stuff. If the font is Akzidenz, that dates them to 1984 or so, since the later 2/5 signs were done with handcut Helvetica faked into Standard from the sign shop. They used enamel for these, which was unusual for an overhead sign. The stacked style makes sense for the late 80s, when they got desperate in fitting small bullets into place. I guess they couldn't fit all the text on the description section, so they moved a little bit of it over. A rare in-between sign before they shrank the font of the text for the 1990s.

Most of those station entrance signs are probably still up, just covered up. Not Van Wyck, as I know that got new double-sided enamel in the 1990s, but generally stations all over have kept their 1980s signs with new sheet metal tacked over. That's what's currently visible at 23rd St. and 157th St.  while sign replacement is going on. 

15 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

We may want to avoid SOME of those cuts, but if the subway is only carrying ~30% of its normal ridership, why is it running at 90-100% of service? I would like that if my fairy godmother was paying for it, but it is burning real money for service that isn't being consumed. 

Somebody who knows the supplements better than I do can explain it, but I do know the original covid cuts amounted to running 75% of daytime service. It may be up to around 85% of service, I'm not sure about the exact supplement. Obviously the overnight shutdown is a chunk gone. But remember, there's a moral health hazard here – they sort of have to burn money, because if they cut service to match demand and return to loading guidelines, people will be sardine-packed in a pandemic setting. That can't happen, for a number of practical and ethical reasons. It's bad for the city, it's bad for people, it's a legal risk for the MTA, it's reckless, it's wrong...goes on. Not to mention, there was and is an imperative to move essential workers, who have been the reason the city kept functioning in the first place. These things are bigger than the budget, I think. So that's why they only cut to 75% service when they were at 25% of riders. I'm sure the accountants would have preferred 25%; it couldn't happen.

As for requesting funding to cover the next year's predicted deficit, I'm yet to be convinced why that's wrong. Businesses the world over will not begin an operation unless funding is secured. Why should the MTA have to operate on year-to-year brinksmanship and doom itself to decades of crushing debt service payments that mean there will never be any recovery, ever? 

Public transit is so important. It's the heart of the city, it's the great equalizer, it's the reason NYC works. Nobody should be toying with throwing away half the system lightly. 

7 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

He is misrepresenting the MTA deficit and I am being KIND.

We can avoid a fare increase with a 10% cut in service. If they imposed the 40% NYCT cut/50% railroad cut in January 2021, they would save an additional $500M. They could then take the capital money and keep very important capital projects moving and use the displaced bus operators to be a dedicated shuttle force and cover them for NYCT as well as the railroads. To be clear, they can impose a 25% service cut without public hearings. They should not be raising fares at all in this environment.
 

That is not a misrepresentation, though. You're talking about two different things. What he presenting is what needs to be done to avoid draconian cuts that would the public and the city greatly. What you're suggesting is that they perform these horrific cuts and go from there. Well, yes, if you cut half of all service – I can't even begin to express how bad that is for the city! – you can avoid the full deficit. But that should be the last resort, not the first resort. Even a 25% cut is horrific. So I think it's perfectly fair game to express the deficit comparable to ideal service and then go from there. They won't get all the money they're requesting, maybe less than half of it. Who knows. They can evaluate the cuts after that process.

I think the stakes are too high to throw the whole system away before you've tried any other option. This isn't 2010 all over again. People's lives and routines would be completely upturned by a 25%, let alone a 50% cut. The economic impact on the city would be massive.

41 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

No, it is not "out of date". He is misrepresenting the deficit amount to put pressure on Congress. He thinks he can twist their arms to get multiple years of deficit money out of them in one shot.

He has been misrepresenting the budget deficit for next year by a factor of three. He is required to balance NEXT YEAR'S budget by the end of December. He is not required to balance the next three years by the end of December. There is a huge difference between needing $12B right now and $4B right now. It is dishonest and he should stop doing that right now.

Equally dishonest is trying to pass a fare hike before you show people what you are going to cut out of the system. This new fare hike raises $79M for NYCT and $148M overall. He could have cut back service to save that money this year. He still can cut service that isn't being used and save more than that. We run transportation to carry people, not to maintain maximum employment. Instead of laying off 9,000+ people, he would have to lay off less than half of that and they could be redeployed to run bus service for certain capital projects that still have Sandy money earmarked for them (such as the Rutgers tunnel repair). You could shut the Rutgers tunnel down for 6 months and get it out of the way.

I am highly tempted to propose just such a plan, but I am not sure I have enough time to do it.

'Misrepresenting' is a pretty heavy charge. I don't think it stands.

What the chart shows is the deficit in the coming years. There's already a 2020 deficit, add that to 2021 and 2022 and you get $12b. What he's asking for is to acquire the funding to support the system with diminished revenues so that the MTA isn't forced to go into unthinkable debt borrowing from everywhere and making debt service an even great expense in the future. You don't want debt service to take up 40% of your yearly budget – then you really will always need money!

The report also explains some of their cuts, explaining how they plan to trim cuts before a fair hike or borrowing:

"The MTA identified new cost savings in three areas: overtime, consulting contracts, and other non-personnel expenses. These actions were initially presented to the MTA Board at a special Board meeting in August 2020 and have been subsequently refined and increased. Agencies have already begun implementing these savings, which are projected to reduce expenses by $259 million in 2020, $601 million in 2021, $498 million in 2022, $466 million in 2023 and $461 million in 2024."

Some specific cuts:

"Savings in non-personnel expenses include reduced costs for electric power, fuel and labor from lower operating service levels; reduced inventory buildup; better management of non-revenue fleet; elimination of bus wi-fi and Bus Time SMS; revised vehicle inspection schedules and reductions on non-essential repairs; various procurement business expense savings; reduction of property and office equipment rentals; and the reduction in non-essential business travel, membership dues and training programs."

That's what they propose now. Then, they have cuts described if a stimulus is not passed:

"For New York City Transit Subways, annual savings is estimated to be $343 million, with a workforce impact of 2,369 positions. Subway service reductions of up to 40% may result in reduced frequency, suspension of service and/or major weekend changes. All weekend service may be on 15-minute headways. Overall, the impact of the service reductions could reduce systemwide annual revenue vehicle miles and annual trips by approximately 40 percent. The I-9 reduction in service may allow for a 35% subway fleet reduction, generating savings in maintenance, cleaning and inspection costs.

For New York City Transit Buses and MTA Bus, annual savings is estimated to be $641 million for NYCT and $190 million for MTA Bus, with a workforce impact of 4,587 positions at NYCT and 1,282 positions at MTA Bus. Proposed reductions ensure alternative service is available within a half-mile. Bus service reductions of up to 40% may result in reduced frequencies by up to 33% on bus routes that are not eliminated. Additional service reductions may affect up to 24% of all bus routes, primarily those with low ridership, high cost per boarding and proximity to nearby alternatives. For the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, combined annual savings is estimated to be $265 million, with a workforce impact of 933 positions. Proposed reductions under consideration also take into account the existence of nearby alternate service and maintaining adequate service for essential workers. Railroad service reductions of up to 50% may result in full or partial suspension of service on both weekdays and weekends. Peak service may be reduced to every 20 to 30 minutes, or hourly in certain instances. Off-peak and weekend service may be hourly, reflecting current ridership levels while maintaining sufficient service to prevent crowding."

Those are the draconian cuts that most of us really want to avoid.

5 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I've done all the remote interviews in the dining room, with no fux given.... My bedroom is as bland as it gets; no posters, figurines, nothing of the sort.... As long as I don't aim the camera on the floor (where you'll see a couple of corrugated boxes of sports cards & TCG cards), I don't have anything to worry about....

Out of the 4 (initial/first round) interviews (3 out of the 4 went to the second round, and 1 out those these went to a 3rd round; which is this place I work for now), 2 out of the 4 were done in their kitchen, 1 was in the bedroom, and 1 was in a basement!

See, I'm in the sad state where I have to move to the kitchen for the classier interviews. Cause at least it's a kitchen, bland, ugly, nobody can hold it against me. The bedroom is the full subway memorabilia 'is my guy...good?' situation. 

3 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Chill, I got them in my beard and in my hair already.

I started going grey up top at twenty, same thing with my parents. Had a college gf who tried to convince me I could pick them out one-by-one...forever. Thinking, that genie's out the bottle, but your input is appreciated...

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be honest I don't think this would be that bad. It's not as obvious a red flag as, say, having posters of anime waifus all over the place. Personally, I indulge myself with historic maps, so I can just say I like vintage things if anyone asks questions. But rollsigns aren't immediately weird to me, the same way that I wouldn't be weirded out if someone's room was full of Patriots memorabilia. (Approving of that is a different story.)

Damn, so you're telling me I should hide the six-foot furry, but keep the rollsigns? I wish somebody had warned me earlier.

2 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

God, thanks for making me feel old now🤣😭(joined at 19, currently 31)

LMAO! I know, I'm like, wasn't I supposed to outgrow that transit stuff back when I was a kid... Damn. 

Worst is when I have a Zoom for an interview or work and I have to hide the subway signs on the wall... I'm grown, I swear... hire me!

37 minutes ago, Deucey said:

From here:

Having the counties only control the parts of the budget that affect infrastructure in their areas effectively de-merges  since that is in effect what a county transit authority is -  administers money for SCT and Bee Line, but both counties run their systems their way.

Works fine for buses, but because railroads cross county lines, letting Nassau decide to divert funds from its LIRR budget to NICE will affect Suffolk's ability to use the LIRR. That's why states create authorities for these thing or make them state agencies - to prevent bottlenecks from holding operations hostage. You give the Authority's power of the purse to counties, you get Charlie Foxtrots.

It's a forum. Forums are venues for displays, demonstrations, and debates. No one's "picking fights" with you - they're taking what you're saying and debating it.

But when it comes to you and @Via Garibaldi 8, it seems you're coming for him and what he says due to personal feelings.

Oh, then I didn't phrase that well. I think the county executives should be able to opine on funding for the suburban divisions of the network, but if anything they should have far less power over the regional. It's things like ESA that shouldn't be allowed to happen, and people like Ed Mangano who shouldn't have a seat at the table. I said it seemed like picking a fight because at no point did I endorse ending the lease agreement, and I can't really figure out where in my comment it seemed like I said that. It seems like you just put the words in my mouth.

That last statement actually made me laugh. Come on, man. That's such a biased read of these conversations. You can even scroll up three lines in this thread to see who @'d who. Did I bring him in to this thread? 

Also, look, I get that you've been on the forum for a few years. You have your allegiances. But there's history to some of the remarks here. Some of us, like myself, @GojiMet86, @R10 2952, obviously @Cait Sith, have been on this forum for the better part of ten or more years. We have pretty good memories about the way people have conducted themselves and the things they've said over the years. I view it as one long conversation all of us have been having. It's not personal feelings, it's knowing where people are coming from, how they've conducted themselves, the things they've said. We're lucky, some of the real nuts are no longer here lol – all types of slurs and such from chargerdodge or whoever that guy was back in '12 or so, and his many different accounts after. A lot of people are better behaved than they used to be. I'll include myself in that, lol. But it all adds up.

For what it's worth, by the way, you're right that the '$12b thru 2021' comment is confusing. It may be out of date. The math looks a lot closer to ($12b) through 2022, and then -2 and -2. ($16b) through 2024 seems to be most accurate and most up-to-date number, and the MTA is asking the feds for $12b of that $16b. My guess is this is to avoid debt service payments eclipsing the budget too massively.

It is not correct to say Foye "doesn't have the facts straight." He is not a stupid man. Moreover, the estimates have changed between the July Plan and the November Plan. I think what is more likely is that their estimates have shifted over the course of the pandemic and deficit spending has been reorganized. Cuts have also been planned. And don't forget the higher-than-anticipated vaccine efficacy (90% vs. ~65%) with earlier (Q1 2021) implementation than initially planned. I'm combing through the current PowerPoint. Some revenue was slightly higher than initially expected:

"Agency revenues and expenses are more favorable than projected in the July Plan. Fare and toll revenues are estimated to surpass the July Plan forecast by $319 million, while non-labor expenses are projected to be lower by $295 million in 2020, although are projected to be higher for the rest of the Plan period. Savings from vacancies—attributable to an MTA-wide hiring freeze—are expected to total $66 million. Debt service expense is forecast to be $31 million favorable in 2020, with savings through the remainder of the Plan period, while subsidies are slightly unfavorable through 2022, followed by improvements in 2023 and 2024."

I think the relevant change may be this borrowing that allows the 2020 deficit to be covered (emphasis mine):

"To cover the 2020 deficit, the MTA will use the authority granted in the 2020-2021 State Enacted Budget to borrow up to $10 billion in deficit financing through December 2022. The MTA intends to utilize the Federal Reserve’s Municipal Lending Facility (“MLF”), which was established by the Federal Reserve as a source of emergency financing for state and local governments and public entities to ensure they have access to credit during the COVID pandemic. MTA has previously utilized this lending facility to refinance approximately $450 million of maturing bond anticipation notes in August. The terms of the MLF financing are attractive compared with MTA’s alternatives in the municipal credit markets and so the MTA intends to borrow the maximum it is allowed to borrow under the program, $2.9 billion, before the lending window closes at the end of 2020. The MTA expects to issue long-term bonds in 2023 to repay the MLF loan.

https://new.mta.info/document/24126

Now, that borrowing isn't exactly a good thing, but it may keep the lights on given the anticipated $3.9bil of HEROES funding did not materialize.

Just now, JAzumah said:

The MTA was seen as an entity that could pool more revenues to be able to float bonds to rebuild the transit system. It was expanded to that role, but the railroads were literally falling apart. The subways were in much better shape than the railroads at that time.

True, and the proposition was always that transit would be supported by the income of Bridge and Tunnels. Hence I would definitely date the MTA to at least after the fact of the TBTA acquisition, which is right around the same time of the NYCTA acquisition.