Comments on: Will the stimulus save 7 extension stop?

By: Boris

Boris — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:49:46 +0000

I agree with rhywun.

The MTA, furthermore, needs a complete revamping, having proven themselves to be among the most impotent, corrosively corrupt entities in the country. Anyone pacing the glacial movement of the SAS can verify this…what are the costs, roughly $10,000 per foot?

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:37:59 +0000

In this specific case, I don’t specifically know if the stimulus will lead to more debt. If it does, I agree with you that it is a poor solution.

In general, the MTA needs to come up with a much better way of funding capital construction, because a lot more of it is needed. The Pataki administration chose to put it on a credit card, and we’re now stuck with the consequences. The Ravitch proposal (a new business tax and tolls on the East River bridges) is a sensible way of solving it, and we all need to hope it gets passed.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:35:12 +0000

Then stimulus dollars should be used to fill gaping holes, like the SAS or any number of possible extensions in unserved parts of Brooklyn or Queens. Not for speculative ventures designed to pump up the profits of developers.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:27:08 +0000

Fair point Marc – but my concern is also that the stimulus dollars wont cover the total costs of the construction, meaning the MTA will have to borrow money, and which means the debt service comes out of operations. As I see it – and pls correct me if I am wrong – these stimulus dollars can ultimately lead to operating expenses and thus to the detriment of the overall system.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:22:06 +0000

The federal government is not going to invest stimulus dollars in “upkeep,” because that’s a problem the MTA needs to solve on its own. Either we get stimulus dollars for new construction—or we do not get stimulus dollars. The 7 extension is already underway, so it seems like a pretty good place to use the money. One might argue that this project never should have been built in the first place, but that ship has already sailed.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:15:28 +0000

The Hell’s Kitchen area needs more transit options, and while it’s true that the area is already developed, that shouldn’t preclude subway access.

That’s true if you think like a transit advocate. It’s less true if you think like a power broker out to distribute money to developers. In that case, “Already developed” means “it’s impossible to bulldoze it and replace it with high-income housing.”

By: Joe G

Joe G — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:59:14 +0000

And how will this “have long- and short-term benefits for the economy.”

To me, like the Fulton proposal, this is spending cash because it s there, as opposed to finding the best, most creative uses. The MTA’s issue is, in the middle of an economic disaster, stimulus dollars methinks should be spent on upkeep not multibillion projects (and btw stimulus dollars will not cover thr total costs of these projects, which means more borrowing – the debt service of which comses out of operating budgets). I have seen no creative thinking out of the State or city – this will lead to a horrible system, albeit one with a stop on 42 and 10th)