Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a service it needs to be paid for. It should be paid for by the people who use it. The fare should cover all the operating cost, and at least a good chunk of the capital costs. If people can't afford it (or anything else about the expenses of living in what is one of the most expensive cities in the world), they should move.
drivers here pay enough towards the transit system as they get tolled to death .
It's a service it needs to be paid for. It should be paid for by the people who use it. The fare should cover all the operating cost, and at least a good chunk of the capital costs. If people can't afford it (or anything else about the expenses of living in what is one of the most expensive cities in the world), they should move.
How is it materially different from fire-fighting. Should only those who have fires be billed for the cost of fire-fighting units?
Fire fighting (and not just in NYC) is usually paid for by property taxes. Property owners benefit from it (in both the protection of their properties, and savings on insurance), so having them pay that way isn't improper.
Transit riders are the main beneficiaries of the transit system. So it's proper that they pay for by paying a fare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King
How is it materially different from fire-fighting. Should only those who have fires be billed for the cost of fire-fighting units?
it doesn't. The State controls the MTA. Take it up with Albany.
NYC leases the subway system to the MTA (the city owns the subway system). While the MTA undoubtedly has significant authority pursuant to the lease, I wonder if it would be worth it for the city to go it alone again? Probably not as city politicians are even worse than the folks in Albany it seems, but an interesting thought.
NYC leases the subway system to the MTA (the city owns the subway system). While the MTA undoubtedly has significant authority pursuant to the lease, I wonder if it would be worth it for the city to go it alone again? Probably not as city politicians are even worse than the folks in Albany it seems, but an interesting thought.
As much as it seems like to me on its face that having the city in charge of things in the city is a good plan, I just can't see that turning out better for us.
Yes it is.
The MTA should be free to everyone and fully supported by the general state and City income tax revenue that should be a PROGRESSIVE tax, unlike what it is today.
The city/state income taxes are already quite progressive and quite high. The only progress you'd achieve is in driving more middle/upper middle class out of NY and in having a much worse off transit system and city to boot.
It [the MTA] boils down to corruption, politics and an unsustainable cost structure. I think it's interesting that after the feds stopped going after the local mafias after 9/11 that the creep downward in the MTA started. I'm willing to bet certain "families" probably have a great deal of sway over everything from labor contracts to capital construction bids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
