Comments on: Albany bickers as MTA burns

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:20 +0000

They’ll just be reprogrammed as Q trains or N/R trains. What to do with the new rolling stock isn’t a very big problem. Plenty of lines need the new trains.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:21:41 +0000

I live in Bay Ridge and I’ve really had it with the nasty, funky R trains. O MTA, throw some of those new trains our way please.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:35:15 +0000

@ScottE: Yes, debt service includes principal and interest. Albany, as usual, did something stupid. They funded the last capital program with debt, which had to be paid off out of the operating budget. That was a terrible idea, but having done it, we are stuck with the consequences of the decision.

The Ravitch plan involves no new debt. Instead, it attempts to secure two recurring revenue streams, namely bridge tolls and a payroll tax. If it were enacted, the Ravitch plan would not only plug the current deficit, but it would also fund future capital programs, so that we would never again (hopefully) use debt for that purpose.

There’s a myth that the capital program consists entirely of big-ticket projects like SAS and ESA. Actually, the bulk of the capital program is for things like station rehabs, signal replacement, new rolling stock, and so forth. If we don’t do these things, we are back on the road to the 1970s and a state of disrepair.

People also need to understand that the big-ticket items receive large infusions of federal funding, which is not transferrable to the operating budget. If we cancel those projects, we lose the funding too.

By: Bill Reese

Bill Reese — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:19:30 +0000

This isn’t a very important question, considering that there are more important things going on, but what will happen to all the new R-160 W Trains that the MTA put into service in the last year. I live in Astoria and seeing an old Orange-and-Yellow seat W Train is rare. Will they be moved onto the R line or given over to the Q line?

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:39:56 +0000

of course I am not saying abandon the plan – but I am saying the plan (and how it got sold) is a major part of the problem. Loading more debt now upon the fragile system is stupid – even with the Ravitch plan there is still proposed billions of dollars that need to be financed.

And also – I am not saying use the fed cap money for operations – it’s already been used up anyway as the capital plans are only funded through 2009. But – there is a way to move that money to operations – it requires DOT exemptions etc but these are extraordinary times.

What do you propose?

By: rhywun

rhywun — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:45:19 +0000

It’s also the mentality that gave us graffiti-covered trains that broke down constantly a few decades ago. I can’t wait for those days again. (Actually, those days were long over by the time I became a New Yorker, but you get the idea….)

By: Scott E

Scott E — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:36:53 +0000

I have a question regarding this “debt-service”, which comes out of the operations budget. In comparing it to a home mortgage, does it include interest and principal, or is it only interest payments? It would seem highly peculiar if the principal costs of previous capital programs should be paid by operations, and if interest-only payments are being made, there’s no progress in paying down the debt, is there?

With regard to Bloomberg’s goal to push the plan through the senate, I wonder what his options are. Could the city toll the NYCDOT-owned-and-operated bridges to fund the city itself – without Albany approval? If he does that, then maybe the decision in Capital City shifts from “should we toll them,” to “who should receive the toll revenue”. Or, I suppose he could really play hardball and disrupt some of the bus “privileges” on city-owned streets, but that probably wouldn’t be wise.

By: Mitch45

Mitch45 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:45:02 +0000

So you’re suggesting that the MTA abandon its capital plan and instead use the money to maintain the existing system? Not only would that be illegal (federal money earmarked for capital programs MUST be used for such or returned), but that is exactly the mentality that has kept the Second Avenue Subway out of existence for the past 70+ years.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:54:39 +0000

Maybe part of the problem is, as you say, “the MTA’s ambitious capital expansion program.”

That program is estimated at $30B over the next 5 years, and we know part (all?) of the mess we are in is due to debt service (almost $1.4B a year out of operations) on that ambitious plan? Just maybe people – senators, public, press – are looking at the world we are in and thinking that overleveraging doesnt work in a rapidly declining and toxic economic environment, and the MTAs plan – while laudable – is no longer feasible????

By: Richard Green

Richard Green — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:46:45 +0000

I do!