MTA's Presentation Calls for Massive Cuts to Bus Service

[Via Garibaldi 8]

38 minutes ago, Lex said:

And that can be set up as an annual payment plan over three years. It's not rocket science, but an issue of will, and Republicans have shown no will to address common issues (they've had repeated opportunities and have opted for ego-driven control every damn time, while the Democrats on the whole are trying and failing to please everyone).

And you just described the problem... The Democrats are trying to put everything but the kitchen sink into this stimulus package and bail out every Tom, Dick and Harry. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Don't put words in my mouth. It's called mismanagement, period. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're incompetent. It means people are entitled to have different opinions. We are in the USA, not some totalitarian state somewhere. You have a habit of trying to talk down to people you disagree with, especially if they don't share your views politically. It's disturbing.

You frame this like it's a disagreement of values. But you're not doing the minimum research to have the facts right. It gets exhausting. I even linked you the NYT piece and the article about the MTA deficit and you still ignored them and stuck to your misinterpretation of what Pat Foye said. How are we supposed to have a discussion if you won't even respect the facts of the situation? Then, even when people explain you've gotten something wrong (like when you claimed the MTA didn't cut bus or subway service and easily could have slashed it) you double down and tell us we're all wrong. So yes, if I come off frustrated or exhausted in my comments, there's a reason. JAzumah and I don't always agree politically, but we have very productive conversations, because he does his research and follows the facts. I try to do my research too. It's kind of a sign of respect – I respect other people here enough to try to stay informed in conversation with them. To shoot from the hip when other people have done their due diligence would be a rude thing to do. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by MHV9218

[Via Garibaldi 8]

16 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

You frame this like it's a disagreement of values. But you're not doing the minimum research to have the facts right. It gets exhausting. I even linked you the NYT piece and the article about the MTA deficit and you still ignored them and stuck to your misinterpretation of what Pat Foye said. How are we supposed to have a discussion if you won't even respect the facts of the situation? Then, even when people explain you've gotten something wrong (like when you claimed the MTA didn't cut bus or subway service and easily could have slashed it) you double down and tell us we're all wrong. So yes, if I come off frustrated or exhausted in my comments, there's a reason. JAzumah and I don't always agree politically, but we have very productive conversations, because he does his research and follows the facts. I try to do my research too. It's kind of a sign of respect – I respect other people here enough to try to stay informed in conversation with them. To shoot from the hip when other people have done their due diligence would be a rude thing to do. 

I didn't misinterpret any of Pat Foye's interviews, and I have no reason to do research when I have seen plenty of his interviews LIVE and read plenty of articles. We disagree, period. Accept that and stop trying to speak down to me. I'm entitled to my opinion. I don't think they should get what they're asking for. Some of it, but not $12 billion. I would still like to know what happened with past funds they were given that they promised would be accounted for that we have heard nothing about since.

As far as the service "cuts", modified service was what they provided across the system and that was because of a personnel shortage. I don't call that a service cut in my mind. Once personnel started to return, they brought back local bus and subway service. A service cut in my mind is what we're looking at now where we will have hearings to get rider feedback. 

[MHV9218]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I didn't misinterpret any of Pat Foye's interviews, and I have no reason to do research when I have seen plenty of his interviews LIVE and read plenty of articles. We disagree, period. Accept that and stop trying to speak down to me. I'm entitled to my opinion. I don't think they should get what they're asking for. Some of it, but not $12 billion. I would still like to know what happened with past funds they were given that they promised would be accounted for that we have heard nothing about since.

As far as the service "cuts", modified service was what they provided across the system and that was because of a personnel shortage. I don't call that a service cut in my mind. Once personnel started to return, they brought back local bus and subway service. A service cut in my mind is what we're looking at now where we will have hearings to get rider feedback. 

1) That's the attitude that's the problem. I'm wrong all the time – we all are! Why aren't you willing to budge on this stuff to say informed? For instance, I couldn't remember the details of the service cuts, so I went back to check in detail. See below:

2) This is kind of my point. It's not true that they brought back full service after some of the personnel shortage. There was an entire program in effect for a long time called the Essential Service Plan. All , , , , and  service was shuttered, along with a number of other express lines. The idea was to cut service at least 25% across the system and more on specific lines, while still providing enough service to avoid any crowding situations that would mean essential workers were unable to social distance. This all happened before the overnight shutdown began, which was a Cuomo initiative on top of all that. I don't know what you can call these besides service cuts.

http://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-implements-“ny-essential-service-plan”-move-healthcare-workers

https://ny.curbed.com/2020/3/24/21192454/coronavirus-nyc-transportation-subway-citi-bike-covid-19

[Via Garibaldi 8]

23 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

1) That's the attitude that's the problem. I'm wrong all the time – we all are! Why aren't you willing to budge on this stuff to say informed? For instance, I couldn't remember the details of the service cuts, so I went back to check in detail. See below:

2) This is kind of my point. It's not true that they brought back full service after some of the personnel shortage. There was an entire program in effect for a long time called the Essential Service Plan. All , , , , and  service was shuttered, along with a number of other express lines. The idea was to cut service at least 25% across the system and more on specific lines, while still providing enough service to avoid any crowding situations that would mean essential workers were unable to social distance. This all happened before the overnight shutdown began, which was a Cuomo initiative on top of all that. I don't know what you can call these besides service cuts.

http://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-implements-“ny-essential-service-plan”-move-healthcare-workers

https://ny.curbed.com/2020/3/24/21192454/coronavirus-nyc-transportation-subway-citi-bike-covid-19

Yeah because of the pandemic. It's not like they cut service just because. That's the point. If you want to be technical, you can say that since there's no overnight subway, that's also a service cut, though I don't view it that way.

[MHV9218]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah because of the pandemic. It's not like they cut service just because. That's the point. If you want to be technical, you can say that since there's no overnight subway, that's also a service cut, though I don't view it that way.

Wait, what? I'm lost. This whole time you weren't talking about the pandemic, and you were arguing that there should have been massive service cuts out of nowhere, even when ridership was booming? 

At the beginning you said:

Quote

They reduced Metro-North service to the bare bones and have since the pandemic started because ridership plummeted. Meanwhile they didn't scale back on the buses or subways and they could have reduced service in some places. You don't spend like a drunken sailor when the revenue isn't coming in. 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Wait, what? I'm lost. This whole time you weren't talking about the pandemic, and you were arguing that there should have been massive service cuts out of nowhere, even when ridership was booming? 

At the beginning you said:

 

Uh yes I was.... Try to follow along. What I said was the  has been running modified Metro-North service for quite some time because of the pandemic and low ridership. They know how much service they needed to provide and where ridership was to allow for social distancing, etc. They could've done the same thing with the buses and subways. There was a period in which some subway trains were literally empty with one person in a car. Do you really need to run a train every 4-5 minutes when ridership is much lower than what it normally is? No. You run modified service where you can and shift service around as needed. Even @JAzumah said that and I agree.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Via Garibaldi 8

[MHV9218]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Uh yes I was.... Try to follow along. What I said was the  has been running modified Metro-North service for quite some time because of the pandemic and low ridership. They know how much service they needed to provide and where ridership was to allow for social distancing, etc. They could've done the same thing with the buses and subways. There was a period in which some subway trains were literally empty with one person in a car. Do you really need to run a train every 4-5 minutes when ridership is much lower than what it normally is? No. You run modified service where you can and shift service around as needed,

Which is exactly what they did. Not worth going over this again. See above. See links I provided.

"Try to follow along"

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, MHV9218 said:

Which is exactly what they did. Not worth going over this again. See above. See links I provided.

"Try to follow along"

Uh huh... And somehow they didn't manage to bring down costs... At the end of the day, they'll be very lucky to get $12 billion, and that's what it comes down to.

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

And still, absolutely none of this is VG8's point, which was that the MTA conspired to waste money by not cutting service, when all of us have now explained a dozen times in detail exactly how they cut service.

Nah, that wasn't what he was conveying in the slightest....

[MHV9218]

23 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Nah, that wasn't what he was conveying in the slightest....

He says they purposely didn't cut service when they could have (which isn't true; and we all showed him examples of how they cut service), and then he implied this is proof of why they have budget trouble / can't be trusted with money. His words: "they didn't scale back on the buses or subways and they could have reduced service in some places. You don't spend like a drunken sailor when the revenue isn't coming in." But that wasn't true. And what we all tried to tell him is that they did scale back, a lot, and they weren't 'spending like a drunken sailor,' they were trying to provide service to essential workers and allow social distancing.

A lot of goal posts got moved as this went on, but don't think you're right to say 'not in the slightest.' 

[JAzumah]

4 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Surely you recognize the negative externalities of years of accumulating debt and the inability to pay back existing debt service payments?

I do, but that is not related to COVID and does not belong in a COVID bill.

Boeing didn't take the $25B set aside for them because they did not want strings attached. Congress could have taken that money and redeployed it for transit, but people were trying to bag the kitchen sink, so it didn't fit. If the MTA just asked for what they needed, arms could have been twisted to push a transit package of $24B through, even as a standalone if needed. I am not going to say the MTA scuttled the deal, but they are reinforcing DC's mistrust of the process.

 

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

He says they purposely didn't cut service when they could have (which isn't true; and we all showed him examples of how they cut service), and then he implied this is proof of why they have budget trouble / can't be trusted with money. His words: "they didn't scale back on the buses or subways and they could have reduced service in some places. You don't spend like a drunken sailor when the revenue isn't coming in." But that wasn't true. And what we all tried to tell him is that they did scale back, a lot, and they weren't 'spending like a drunken sailor,' they were trying to provide service to essential workers and allow social distancing.

A lot of goal posts got moved as this went on, but don't think you're right to say 'not in the slightest.' 

That's not remotely conveying any conspiracy to waste money.... Not in the slightest, fits.

[MHV9218]

8 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

That's not remotely conveying any conspiracy to waste money.... Not in the slightest, fits.

I mean, it was pretty clear from my comment I was using the term loosely, to emphasize his point, but if what he argued were true, then yeah, it would be. Intentionally choosing not to cut service, whether out of some desire to burn money or malfeasance or what. Hence the 'drunken sailor.' And so they shouldn't receive money in the future. That's that he implied was going on. Not really sure what you're staking this fight on...I'm kind of exhausted of arguing back and forth on fact after fact he got wrong here (the service cuts, the size of the deficit, the debt of each year, the congressional process). Maybe you think all that is true. Sorry you didn't agree with my phrasing.

[B35 via Church]

28 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

I mean, it was pretty clear from my comment I was using the term loosely, to emphasize his point, but if what he argued were true, then yeah, it would be. Intentionally choosing not to cut service, whether out of some desire to burn money or malfeasance or what. Hence the 'drunken sailor.' And so they shouldn't receive money in the future. That's that he implied was going on. Not really sure what you're staking this fight on...I'm kind of exhausted of arguing back and forth on fact after fact he got wrong here (the service cuts, the size of the deficit, the debt of each year, the congressional process). Maybe you think all that is true. Sorry you didn't agree with my phrasing.

What I don't agree with is misrepresenting someone's position to try to bolster your own.... You didn't even have to resort to that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

I mean, it was pretty clear from my comment I was using the term loosely, to emphasize his point, but if what he argued were true, then yeah, it would be. Intentionally choosing not to cut service, whether out of some desire to burn money or malfeasance or what. Hence the 'drunken sailor.' And so they shouldn't receive money in the future. That's that he implied was going on. Not really sure what you're staking this fight on...I'm kind of exhausted of arguing back and forth on fact after fact he got wrong here (the service cuts, the size of the deficit, the debt of each year, the congressional process). Maybe you think all that is true. Sorry you didn't agree with my phrasing.

Again, in my mind, they never cut service. They ran modified service because of the pandemic. It's not a question of me getting it wrong. I don't see running modified service as a service cut. That's what I'm saying. It's my opinion and my view of what a service cut is. 2010 was service cuts. They had public hearings and cut service permanently. The modified service they have run this year was because of the pandemic, and as far as I'm concerned, was meant to be temporary.

With that said, it is my opinion that they could have run modified service on some bus and subway lines longer (again my opinion). You don't have to agree with it. You can certainly hold the position that they needed to run the service that they did for essential workers. Fine. I think they could've ran modified service longer to cut back on operating expenses, which perhaps would've meant not having such a huge financial hole. I hope this is clear now.

Finally, my overall position, putting the pandemic rhetoric aside, is that the  would still be facing financial pressure. They were well before COVID, which is why congestion pricing was supposed to help because it would be a more stable revenue source for them, but even with that in place, they would still struggle with their budget. This has been well documented in articles, with the reasons outlined accordingly.

Your position is that they've been starved financially over the years. I agree with that position to an extent, but not enough to say that they are totally innocent in all of this, and their mismanagement over the years (well before COVID) and during COVID is why they're in this mess now. Should they get some funding? Yes... No question that they should, just as every other transit agency. Should they get $12 billion? Absolutely not. That's my position... Clear as can be.

[Deucey]

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

We are in the USA, not some totalitarian state somewhere.

Despite Trump’s best efforts - which have been pretty inept, TBH, but that’s a topic for Off-Topic or over whiskey when it’s safe to have more than 10 people indoors after 10pm.

8 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

And still, absolutely none of this is VG8's point, which was that the MTA conspired to waste money by not cutting service, when all of us have now explained a dozen times in detail exactly how they cut service.

Except that’s not what he said at all:

No, I'm showing how despite their incompetence and mismanagement, people like you think we should give them whatever the hell they ask for without expecting them to get their house in order. Even without this situation, they would STILL be planning to raise the fares next year because they are now required to by law to try to stop the bleeding, so stop using COVID as the excuse why their fiscal house is a mess.

If it was solely COVID related, they would get a pass, but they've been a mess for years, with no end in sight. They have no plan to address fare beating... Not last year when they moaned about losing $225+ million, and not this year either when reports show that fare beating is increasing, so let's bail them out with $12 billion and let them come back next year hat in hand begging again.

(Bold and italics = emphasis mine)

[JAzumah]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

With that said, it is my opinion that they could have run modified service on some bus and subway lines longer (again my opinion). You don't have to agree with it. You can certainly hold the position that they needed to run the service that they did for essential workers. Fine. I think they could've ran modified service longer to cut back on operating expenses, which perhaps would've meant not having such a huge financial hole. I hope this is clear now.

Yes. If they ran modified service from January 1 at 25% less, they would save more than a fare hike would earn. That's how much money we are talking about here. They could schedule heavy duty maintenance and accelerate it. The surplus bus drivers could be used to run shuttles for capital projects. If you closed the F tunnel completely and ran bus shuttles to nearby stations, you could knock that project out in a year.
 

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Finally, my overall position, putting the pandemic rhetoric aside, is that the  would still be facing financial pressure. They were well before COVID, which is why congestion pricing was supposed to help because it would be a more stable revenue source for them, but even with that in place, they would still struggle with their budget. This has been well documented in articles, with the reasons outlined accordingly.

100% correct. The fallout from previous years has NO BUSINESS in a COVID bill. NONE.

[checkmatechamp13]

Also @MHV9218 for the Staten Island B/Os they were getting alternate weeks off with pay. In the other boroughs they were getting 1-2 days off per week with pay. Plus the B/Os who were out sick/quarantined. Obviously the union would fight very hard to make sure its members get full pay, but my point is that the service reductions were more due to the fact that they needed to provide a consistent schedule rather than just randomly having buses go missing. I'm sure for the subway and railroads it was a similar situation. (Maybe in June they started incorporating the reduced service into the pick, but from late March/early April to June, I would be willing to bet most of the employees were receiving full pay)

[MHV9218]

9 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

What I don't agree with is misrepresenting someone's position to try to bolster your own.... You didn't even have to resort to that.

When somebody says "they purposely chose not to cut service and wasted more money than they needed to," to sum that up as "they purposely wasted money" is not that much of a stretch. See below, he's still trotting the line out that 'they never cut service' despite Cait Sith, myself, and others all explaining that they did.

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Again, in my mind, they never cut service. They ran modified service because of the pandemic. It's not a question of me getting it wrong. I don't see running modified service as a service cut. That's what I'm saying. It's my opinion and my view of what a service cut is. 2010 was service cuts. They had public hearings and cut service permanently. The modified service they have run this year was because of the pandemic, and as far as I'm concerned, was meant to be temporary.

With that said, it is my opinion that they could have run modified service on some bus and subway lines longer (again my opinion). You don't have to agree with it. You can certainly hold the position that they needed to run the service that they did for essential workers. Fine. I think they could've ran modified service longer to cut back on operating expenses, which perhaps would've meant not having such a huge financial hole. I hope this is clear now.

Finally, my overall position, putting the pandemic rhetoric aside, is that the  would still be facing financial pressure. They were well before COVID, which is why congestion pricing was supposed to help because it would be a more stable revenue source for them, but even with that in place, they would still struggle with their budget. This has been well documented in articles, with the reasons outlined accordingly.

Your position is that they've been starved financially over the years. I agree with that position to an extent, but not enough to say that they are totally innocent in all of this, and their mismanagement over the years (well before COVID) and during COVID is why they're in this mess now. Should they get some funding? Yes... No question that they should, just as every other transit agency. Should they get $12 billion? Absolutely not. That's my position... Clear as can be.

1) That's a distinction without a difference. If the modified service entails a cut in frequency with the goal of saving money, why would you not call it a service cut? This is just splitting hairs. And they're still running modified service, and again, as I've tried to explain, they would still have a huge financial hole no matter what because they lost 90% of farebox revenue.

2) This is like saying that because you had a cut on your knee before, nothing has changed now that you broke your leg. That's about the level of this financial parallel. The MTA would be facing financial pressure on a minuscule degree compared to losing 90% of their main source of revenue. 

3) When it comes to this mess, it's the 90% drop in farebox revenue that got us here. As we discussed before, a budget shortage of $500m (what led to the 2010 doomsday cuts) is barely even on the map compared to the $12b disaster we had now. That's why this doesn't make any sense to act as though they're the same thing. 

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

Except that’s not what he said at all:

What I've tried to explain is that this budget shortfall is just about 90%, 95%, maybe 100% covid-related. It's incorrect to say that this is 'a number of things coming together.' No: this specific shortfall is because they lost 90% of farebox revenue. No transit system can survive that. And when he argue that they purposely chose not to cut to service, as if they intended to keep wasting money, and made that drunken sailor analogy (an image people use when they want to convey people willfully wasting money for no reason), he absolutely implied they were blowing money recklessly for the sake of it.

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

When somebody says "they purposely chose not to cut service and wasted more money than they needed to," to sum that up as "they purposely wasted money" is not that much of a stretch. See below, he's still trotting the line out that 'they never cut service' despite Cait Sith, myself, and others all explaining that they did.

Why did there even have to be a stretch at all, is my point.... If you're beating down someone with facts, why misrepresent their position - especially to a third party (CheckmateChamp) that says "he's with" (as in, in agreement with) your detractor...... If he says he agrees with him, let him have at it.

As far as what you're saying about him trotting a line about never cutting service, I'm not in any disagreement with your & whoever else's counter to that particular sentiment, in regards to that....

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

What I've tried to explain is that this budget shortfall is just about 90%, 95%, maybe 100% covid-related. It's incorrect to say that this is 'a number of things coming together.' No: this specific shortfall is because they lost 90% of farebox revenue. No transit system can survive that. And when he argue that they purposely chose not to cut to service, as if they intended to keep wasting money, and made that drunken sailor analogy (an image people use when they want to convey people willfully wasting money for no reason), he absolutely implied they were blowing money recklessly for the sake of it.

I wouldn't say a number of things coming together per se, but I will say the crisis isn't the sole factor either (hell, even you're hesitant in opining that the budget shortfall is 100% covid related)..... I'm not going to sit here & put a number on it, but yes, the crisis is the major factor behind it....

Anyway, in regards to the bolded statement, what are you saying (or claiming), VG8's saying (or claiming), is the supposed motive for this reckless blowing of money?

Edited November 23, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

1) That's a distinction without a difference. If the modified service entails a cut in frequency with the goal of saving money, why would you not call it a service cut? This is just splitting hairs. And they're still running modified service, and again, as I've tried to explain, they would still have a huge financial hole no matter what because they lost 90% of farebox revenue.

Modified service isn’t a cut since it’s temporary. People didn’t lose jobs or have to have permanent reassignments, and when backdoor boarding ended, the original schedules were reinstated.

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

What I've tried to explain is that this budget shortfall is just about 90%, 95%, maybe 100% covid-related. It's incorrect to say that this is 'a number of things coming together.' No: this specific shortfall is because they lost 90% of farebox revenue. No transit system can survive that. And when he argue that they purposely chose not to cut to service, as if they intended to keep wasting money, and made that drunken sailor analogy (an image people use when they want to convey people willfully wasting money for no reason), he absolutely implied they were blowing money recklessly for the sake of it.

No one’s disputing that. You’re misrepresenting @Via Garibaldi 8’s stance - which is that there’s two separate issues, COVID and long-term improper financial management, and giving money for the former shouldn’t be a massive amount until there’s accountability and reforms regarding the latter.

That’s the issue you’re misrepresenting.

[MHV9218]

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

Why did there even have to be a stretch at all, is my point.... If you're beating down someone with facts, why misrepresent their position - especially to a third party (CheckmateChamp) that says "he's with" (as in, in agreement with) your detractor...... If he says he agrees with him, let him have at it.

As far as what you're saying about him trotting a line about never cutting service, I'm not in any disagreement with your & whoever else's counter to that particular sentiment, in regards to that....

I wouldn't say a number of things coming together, but I will say the crisis isn't the sole factor either (hell, even you're hesitant in opining that the budget shortfall is 100% covid related).....

Anyway, in regards to the bolded statement, what are you saying (or claiming), VG8's saying (or claiming), is the supposed motive for this reckless blowing of money?

Your point taken. I was getting frustrated and used shorthand to rephrase it – I don't see it as a misrepresentation but a summation of the natural conclusion. But I'll cop to playing it too broad, that's a fair charge.

As for the supposed motive, your guess as good as mine. 'Spending like a drunken sailor' – on what? And why? He didn't say, just implied they were reckless and running service for no reason. "They had lots of empty buses and trains running around at one point and they left it like that." That's why I took exception to that comment. There's been a tone in all the comments that the MTA just wastes money to waste money, and so they can't be trusted. That isn't really true. I actually think there's a case to be made for MTA wastefulness when it comes to contractors and capital construction costs (paying for workers made redundant by equipment, SAS, etc.), but I disagree with the idea that operating costs are where there's tons of fat. Generally they just run as much service as possible, with margins as close as possible.

[MHV9218]

2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Modified service isn’t a cut since it’s temporary. People didn’t lose jobs or have to have permanent reassignments, and when backdoor boarding ended, the original schedules were reinstated.

No one’s disputing that. You’re misrepresenting @Via Garibaldi 8’s stance - which is that there’s two separate issues, COVID and long-term improper financial management, and giving money for the former shouldn’t be a massive amount until there’s accountability and reforms regarding the latter.

That’s the issue you’re misrepresenting.

Look, if you view this from a rider's perspective, headways went up massively and there were far fewer buses and trains running. To me, to most of the public, that's a cut. My train that came every 10 minutes comes every 30 minutes – and that goes on for months on end. Call it what you will, that's a cut based on demand. And it does save money. I think it's splitting hairs to say that because it was temporary it's not a cut. It was temporary because there was the expectation of a stimulus coming, and because you can't just lay off tons of public sector workers like that (and nor should you). How about the doomsday cuts that were reinstated a year later, like M8 weekend service? I wouldn't say it was modified service for a year.

The 'long-term mismanagement' leads to budget misses in the tens or hundreds of millions in a given fiscal year. Frankly, I don't teven think it's that causal – a lot of other stuff leads to diminishing revenue, like slower traffic, the rise of ride-share, etc. But regardless. Then the covid 90% reduction in farebox revenue puts us in the billions when it comes to losses. I don't really see why the latter shouldn't be plugged because you have concerns about the former. And his implication is that they're somehow on a similar level, enough that the MTA 'can't be trusted' with money.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

23 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Your point taken. I was getting frustrated and used shorthand to rephrase it – I don't see it as a misrepresentation but a summation of the natural conclusion. But I'll cop to playing it too broad, that's a fair charge.

As for the supposed motive, your guess as good as mine. 'Spending like a drunken sailor' – on what? And why? He didn't say, just implied they were reckless and running service for no reason. "They had lots of empty buses and trains running around at one point and they left it like that." That's why I took exception to that comment. There's been a tone in all the comments that the MTA just wastes money to waste money, and so they can't be trusted. That isn't really true. I actually think there's a case to be made for MTA wastefulness when it comes to contractors and capital construction costs (paying for workers made redundant by equipment, SAS, etc.), but I disagree with the idea that operating costs are where there's tons of fat. Generally they just run as much service as possible, with margins as close as possible.

Ok, you want an example of reckless spending? Sure... So they needed to provide cleaning. No question there... Why couldn't they use  cleaners to so that? Why sid they have to use contractors? Plenty of  have criticized such moves and I agree. That's just one example. I could go on. When you are facing a budget crunch, you need to look at everything and how you are doing it. I don't think they do that enough. How about the consultant they hired to supposedly look at how to cut costs? I mean really... I don't care that it may seem like only a few bucks to you because their budget is so big. It's wasteful and it adds up, and tax payers pay the price.