I understand your point and hope you’ll see I was engaging in a bit of simplistic hyperbole for effect. But only a bit. Because it seems that in fact we are losing MTA capital funds and core NYC Transit services that are primarily for the benefit of the urban core with each new revelation of shortfall, and that those resources seem to be going into a general pot for operating revenue that is used to disproportionately benefit suburban transit service. If NYC Transit were under the exclusive political control of NYC government, it might have less resources than it does now but presumably would not be using them to subsidize commuter rail operating costs any more than it would use them to build an airport in Westchester.

Presently, a Nassau Democratic Senator, Craig Johnson, has been bravely fighting off the main-line third track program from his seat (and veto) on the Capital Plan Review Board. So the MTA gets condemned for spending money in the city (even if a lot of it is on an LIRR capital project, East Side Access) and it gets condemned for spending money on Long Island.

Main-Line third track is supposed to do all three, smooth commutes to the city, enable reverse commutes from the city to LI and enhance local service possibilities. Yet, it faces bi-partisan opposition. Go figure.

Does anyone know exactly what that quote means? If someone commutes from a suburb to New York City, does that count as ridership with New York City as the destination?

Of course, after work, that same person commutes back from New York City with the suburb as the destination. The tax liability should not all fall on NY city.

It’s still diesel out there – you have to change at Ronkonkoma to get out there. Locals have been chomping at the bit, asking for the right to take over the service, and I can’t say I really disagree – the MTA’s focus is entirely about getting people in and out of the city, and all they want is more frequent and reliable service.

If the MTA isn’t going to provide the service, why not let them take over?

The latest is that it was not the Secret Service that ran over conservative blogger Jim Treacher, but possibly a security employee of the State Department.

Note my concern expressed on Room Eight a while back:

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/fta_2007_operating_cost_data_the_subway_is_cost_effective_but_will_have_to_be_more_so_or_die_with_the_res

“Let’s focus on the subway for a moment. There are those who would be pleased that the subway was covering less of its costs in 2007. There are some who agree with me on other things who would like the subway to be free, even if it meant less money for maintenance and service. As I’ve argued on other forums, however, the subway’s reliance on operating subsidies, and New York City’s reliance on the subway, allows the city’s transit riders to be blackmailed and treated as welfare queens by people and places whose transit systems — and roads — are far more subsidized than the subway.”

“Rather than beg for a bailout to be blamed on those residents and subway riders, a bailout that will prove to be inadequate, New York City and its transit riders would have been better off under the MTA’s so-called “doomsday” scenario, or worse. Because with some adjustments the subway could cover its cost and keep operating, when other parts of the transit system would have to shut down. Most people don’t read my posts, don’t read the newspaper, unless they are reading about celebrities, and will not stop sneering at those they are in fact draining until reality hits them in the face.”

So, New York City residents and businesses are treated like welfare Queens, even as others are subsidized far more, and we get doomsday anyway. A particular doomsday in which there are more cuts in the city than the suburbs. I ask again, what is the city’s share of MTA subsidies, operating and capital spending minus fares? I have that data at home, not in the office, but it isn’t 90 percent.

And what is NYC’s share of MTA subsidies — the share of those rides not paid by riders? What is NYC residents’ share of the pay and benefits of MTA workers and retirees.

Looks like Lew Fidler wins again.

City workers aren’t affected by the higher tax, because their pay is controlled by contract, and thus cannot be shifted to them. The result is more NYC service cuts and tax increases.

Retirees don’t pay it. Then again, retirement income is exempt from all state and local income taxes.

The rich won’t pay it, because it is on wage income not investment income.

Businesses can avoid it by moving to New Jersey, or firing their younger workers and turning them into independent contractors, also taking away their health insurance.

Streetsbloggers may notice this deal because of their interest in transportation, but I can point to dozens like it. The most devastating was probably slashing the city’s state school aid while increasing it to the rest of the state in the first year of the Pataki Administration. Set the schools back a decade which, if you were a child in the schools (or forced to go elsewhere as a result) is forever.

I expect a repeat of that one at some point. In every recession, NYC’s share of state school aid (including the back door form of school aid known as STAR) is cut way below its share of the state’s children. The UFT usually gets a pension enhancement as part of the deal, and they have proposed being allowed to retire at 50 already.