Citi Bike sounds Good. Expand it shall! (Part 1)

                              Those bikes! Photo of Citi Bikes outside of City Hall. Courtesy of NY Daily News

Yesterday, May 27, marked a groundbreaking day for New York City and the push to make the city a more livable place for everyone.

Citi Bike, the City's brand new and ambitious bike sharing system, debuted yesterday to those who signed up and received an annual membership key for just $95 - and over 15,000 people did, gaining access to just over 600 stations and 6,000 bikes all over Manhattan below 59th Street and selected areas of Brooklyn. Already, the number of people holding memberships has surpassed those numbers in cities where bike sharing systems have been established long before, such as Boston (which has 7,000 members and 1,000 bikes in 105 Stations), Miami Beach (which has around 2,400 members and 1,200 bikes in 100 Stations), and Minneapolis (which has around 3,750 members and 1,550 bikes in 170 Stations).  Starting this upcoming weekend, weekly and daily memberships will be available to those who aren't inclined in purchasing an annual membership (at $25 and $9.95 respectively).  

Already, Citi Bike is starting to show some early signs of resounding success. Within the first day of operation, Citi Bike reported that as of 5 p.m yesterday:

• 6,050 Rides were taken 
• The average duration of each ride was at 20.48 minutes
• In total, over 13,768 miles were traveled with Citi Bikes.
• They added 772 new members, for total of 16,463 members.

But really, what is Citi Bike intended to do? Besides being a new mode of transportation that New Yorkers can rely on, it is also intended to compliment the city's existing Mass Transit system of Buses and Trains. Especially so in Manhattan, where buses (crosstown buses being a noteworthy case) are often slow and caught up with soul crushing traffic, Citi Bike can provide a much needed alternative from slow buses or expensive cabs. The Lower East Side is another perfect example, as it has subpar subway access and relies heavily on buses to transport it to the nearest subway station. With this, the LES happens to have an abundance of Citi Bike stations, which would give them a reliable alternative from the bus to reach the subway, or in some cases, bike to work! Two quotes from Mayor Bloomberg and Janette Sadik-Khan, the Commissioner of DOT, tell as much (Courtesy of Streetsblog New York)

Question: Will this compete with transit and bike stores?

JSK: We look at this as a real complement to the MTA system, to fill in the gaps. And there are times when it’s just quicker to get across town in particular. We have the largest bus fleet in North America and the slowest bus speeds, so this a convenient, fast, affordable way to get around town.

MRB: Also you’ve gotta remember that a lot of people own bicycles and rent them to go for long periods of time. This is really more designed for getting from Place A to Place B in 30 minutes kind of thing. Some of the bicycle stores that are worried about their business, I think in fact if they think about it, they will sell an awful lot of helmets, that’s profitable, and the more people that ride the more people think about riding, and there’s no reason to think that business will go down. I think history shows it will go up.

The fascinating thing, however, is that this was originally expected to have over 10,000 bikes in over 600+ stations, however, due to technological glitches and the effects of SuperStorm Sandy, it started out with 6,000 bikes - still an impressive number, but 4,000 short. Now, the City is planning to work with sponsors and obtain a Sandy Recovery Loan to speed up the expansion to the original number of 10,000.

However, the prospect that has gotten me really excited is the potential rollout of Citi Bike beyond the initial start up zone to upper reaches of Manhattan and most of the South Bronx, as well as the far reaches of Western Queens - including the neighborhoods of Astoria, Jackson Heights/Corona, and Forest Hills. The DOT is actually committed in expanding the program to those areas, but the political support and will needs to be there. In Part 2 of this series, I will go into detail about the potential expansion of Citi Bike to the Outer Boroughs, the benefits and potential drawbacks of said expansion, and what one must do to support the extension. Until then, hopefully I'll be able to get my annual membership key!

This is Part 1 in a Series of posts detailing the start and potential expansion and benefits of Citi Bike, NYC's brand new Bike Sharing System. Part 2 coming up soon. Stay tuned!

7 Line to Secacus? Nah, I'm not aboard.

The 7 line, shown here approaching 33rd St-Rawson St, could soon be extended to New Jersey if Mayor Bloomberg has his way. (Photo by Brian Zumba)

Over the past couple of months, there has been a lot of buzz on transit websites and transit advocates on the news that Mayor Bloomberg is throwing his support behind the proposed extension of the 7 line to Seacucus Junction, and will soon begin to push for funding to jumpstart the construction of the extension.

It's the wrong way to go.

The 7 line, or the IRT Flushing Line (as it's known to transit buffs), runs from it's Northern Queens termini, Main Street-Flushing, to it's Midtown Manhattan termini, Times Square-42 Street. Coincidently, both Main St-Flushing and Times Square are among the Top 10 busiest stations in the whole system, #10 and #1, respectively. In between, especially during rush hours, it gets crush loaded with commuters looking for fast and easy service to Midtown Manhattan and points in between, and the 7 has seen increasing ridership, due to fast population growth on the line and the exploding gentrification of Long Island City, which occupy the first three to four stations on the line in Queens (Vernon-Jackson Aves, Hunters Point Ave, Court Square, and Queensboro Plaza). As a regular 7 line rider who, up until recently, boarded at Times Square and took the express all the way to Main Street, it can get extremely uncrowded, and if the U.S. Open is occurring or the Mets are playing, or if the line suffers a malfunction- forget it.

Now that I'm done giving my anecdote on the 7 line, let's get down to the point. The 7 line, at this point, is being extended as we speak to the Javits Center, where it will wait for the Hudson Yards Development to materialize. Some transit advocates, however, are calling the extension flawed and unnecessary, given the fact that it didn't include a crucial station at 41 St & 10 Ave to serve a neighborhood that's already there (Hell's Kitchen), and the fact that Hudson Yards is moving at a snails pace.

We're not done even with this boondoggle, and the Mayor wants to create another one. However, to find out why the Mayor wants to extend it to New Jersey, we must look no further then to New Jersey itself, where it gives a set of clues that includes a canceled megaproject, a former governor, the current governor, NJ Transit, and the federal government.

Access to the Region's Core (ARC) was a megaproject intended to benefit NJ Transit commuters, by alleviating delays and increasing capacity for NJ Transit for trains going to and from Penn Station. Planning began 2007, and groundbreaking held in June of 2009, during Jon Corzine's admnstration. It would have included new trackage, a new rail yard, and most importantly, a new rail tunnel for the exclusive use of NJ Transit,which would have doubled capacity for trains heading to and from Penn and NJ. A Federal Transit Administration document prepared in 2007 stated that....    

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) is proposing to construct a new 8.3-mile commuter rail line adjacent to the existing Northeast (Rail) Corridor (NEC) between Secaucus, New Jersey and Manhattan. The Trans Hudson Express Tunnel, also known as Access to the Region’s Core (ARC), includes the construction of two new tunnels under the Hudson River; new rail tracks between Secaucus Junction and New York Penn Station (PSNY); a new six-track rail station underneath 34th Street in midtown Manhattan (with pedestrian linkages to PSNY); a storage yard in Kearny, New Jersey; and the purchase of specialized dual-powered rail locomotives (electric and diesel) and bi-level coaches. The NEC is the only Hudson River commuter rail crossing into midtown Manhattan. Already near capacity, the NEC currently experiences significant travel-time delays whenever there is a train malfunction incident; one train disruption of 15 minutes, for example, can delay as many as 15 other NJT and Amtrak trains. As passenger demand increases, congestion and service reliability are expected to worsen. In addition, commuter rail passengers on NJT’s Bergen County, Main, Pascack Valley, Port Jervis, and Raritan Valley commuter rail lines today must transfer at either Secaucus Junction or in Hoboken to reach New York City. The purpose of the ARC project is to double rail capacity between New Jersey and New York City, thereby relieving congestion and transit delays, while providing for more direct, one-seat service to midtown Manhattan.

It was project to cost anywhere from $7.2 Billion to $8.7 Billion, and once it completed and opened in 2017, it would've already had an instant 203,000 average weekday boardings alone, and by 2030, there would have been 254,200 average weekday boardings, or 24,800 riders benefiting from this project. Coupled with the projected growth of population and jobs between New York and New Jersey, this would have benefitted the region for a long time, and setting the stage for even more transit oriented developments. Plus, add the fact the federal government woud have funded the majority of the costs, it appeared to be a sweet deal.

It wasn't enough for Gov. Chris Christie, who canceled the project in October of 2010 due to concerns of cost overruns, of which New Jersey would have been on the hook to cover, which it simply didn't have the money to do so. In an instant, he give away billons of dollars of federal dollars, and the chance to redevelop and put NJ in a position for expansion was gone. In the midst of all the confusion, Mayor Bloomberg stepped in, promoting an idea to extend the 7 line from it's future termini at 34 Street & 11 Ave to Secaucus Junction as a more cost efficient, and a win-win for both states, saying it provided what ARC didn't- direct access to Midtown Manhattan, Times Square, Grand Central, and transfers to most of the other New York City Subway Routes.

No. Just No.

There are several problems I have with this current extension, but it's already close to being completed, so no point on being a whiner on that. However, there is everything wrong with this extension, and people, especially those who are residents of Queens and use the 7 line, should rise up and actively oppose this extension.

Why, you might ask, am I acting like a reactionary and rising in revolt against this idea? The root of the answer here lies in the fact that this plan is ill-conceived and and heads in the wring direction, completely giving a giant middle finger to the residents of Northeastern Queens, who have been pleading for better transit access for a while now.  In one of my earlier posts, I talked about the IND Second System, which would have provided better transit access by expanding the transit system radically, which would have potentially transformed the city in a way much more different then the one we know of it today. Queens would have received the biggest benefit, with 52 miles of new track alone Included in that would have been an extension of the 7 line from Main Street to the far streched of Northern Queens, with the line splitting in two around Bayside to serve Colege Point and Little Neck, respectively.

Bloomberg, as Mayor of New York CIty, should be looking at extending and completing the subway system here, where wide swaths of the city, not just Northeastern Queens, suffer from a lack of subway access. Neighborhoods such as Flatlands, Utica Ave, Flatbush, the southern portion of Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, Central Brooklyn, much of the Central Portion of the Bronx, and the vast stretches of Southern Queens suffer from lack of decent transit access. Staten Island is a notorious example, as it's the only borough without any subway access to the city, and there is no rapid transit access to LaGuardia Airport in any form. Why doesn't he try to resolve those problems first. Why doesn't he serve the constituents who elected him in the first place, which were the people of New York City, and the people of the state of New Jersey. NJ has PATH, in addition to NJ Transit. Why doesn't NJ take up expansion of those systems- since, after all, this 'proposal' is intended to benefit NJ more then it benefits New Yorkers. The system here urgently needs expansion and renewal, to help it advance and grow for the 21st Century, to keep it in pace with the demands of New York City, which are growing ever more bigger. I urge you, to oppose this expansion, to tell the Mayor of New York City to serve the people of the city of New York first, to improve the subways here first, before we ever think of extending the subway beyond NYC.

What does the High Line, an abandoned rail line in Queens, and the Rockaways & Ozone Park have in common? A lot, apparently.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed building a 3.8 million-square-foot convention center in Ozone Park, Queens.(Image via Arquitectonica)

Yesterday was an important day for New York, and more specifically (and importantly) for Queens. In his State of the State address from Albany, Governor Cuomo talked about streamlining government, improving education, and creating jobs in a tough economy for New York State- a tall job after an amazing first year. A central part to his plan would the building of new convention center in Ozone Park, right next to the new racino constructed by Genting Corp. From his speech-

Our challenge for 2012 is this: How does government spur job creation in a down economy while limiting spending and maintaining fiscal discipline? The answer: We Will Build the Largest Convention Center in the Nation! Let’s begin by building on our economic strength....we must stay ahead of the competition. Convention centers are important generators of economic activity. New York needs a larger, state-of-the-art venue to be competitive for the largest tradeshows and conventions. The Jacob Javits Convention Center on Manhattan’s West Side is obsolete and not large enough to be a top tier competitor in today’s marketplace. The Javits Center is, in fact, 12th in the nation in size — behind the convention centers in Anaheim and Atlanta. This is not a new problem. We have talked about it for 7 years.  But today is different, because today I propose we do something about it. I propose that we build the largest convention center in the nation. 3.8 million square feet—larger than McCormick Place in Chicago, which is currently the largest in the United States. This will bring to New York the largest events, driving demand for hotel rooms and restaurant meals and creating tax revenues and jobs, jobs, jobs. We are pursuing a joint venture with the Genting Organization, a gaming development company, to complete this vision at the Aqueduct Racetrack venue. It is a $4 billion private investment that will generate tens of thousands of jobs and economic activity that will ripple throughout the state. In addition to the new convention space, up to 3,000 hotel rooms will be developed. We will make New York the #1 convention site in the nation.  

But the question is, the infrastructure there to support a brand new convention center at Aqueduct?

Sadly, the answer is no.  

The proposed convention center would be 3.8 million square feet, and be located adjacent to the brand new Resorts World Casino at the Aqueduct Racetrack. It would a public-private partnership and be a benefit to the city, state, and the region overall. Again, not really. First of all, the city has spent billons of dollars to renovate the Javits Center, improve the area around it, starting the development of Hudson Yards at a huge cost, and extending the 7 line towards it in order to make more accesible. And now that's all going down the drain by tearing it down and building a new one in Queens? Second, the area lacks adequate rapid transit access. It's only connection to the rest of the city is the IND Rockaway Line, better known as the A train, and it's a long and slow ride to Manhattan, and passes through some rough areas. Currently, it takes about 40 to 45 Minutes to get from Aqueduct to Times Square, and with current headways, and you can add an extra 10 to 12 minutes on your trip- so in reality, it takes about a hour, and could be even more depending on delays.  Sure, it's located right next to JFK Airport, but there is no direct access to Midtown Manhattan-where all the hotels and potential visitors to the center are located. As such, it's a potential boondoggle. As Ben Kabak stated in his blog Second Avenue Sagas, 

....Transportation access to the Aquaduct area is subpar as it is. Only the A train to the Rockaways stops there, and those trains don’t run too frequently. It’s also a 45-minute ride from West 4th St. and a 50-minute ride from 42nd St. on the A train. While close to JFK, it’s not a convenient location for anyone else. A fifteen-minute walk from the Javits Center has conventioneers in Herald Square. A fifteen-minute subway ride from the Aquaduct stop drops a straphanger off at Broadway Junction in East New York....

The New York Times, in an article covering the proposal, stated-

Over the past two decades, many cities have built exhibition halls or expanded existing convention centers in the hope of attracting professional associations and similar groups, whose attendees typically spend four or five days in a city. But competition, the recession and videoconferencing have taken a toll.

Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas and an expert on convention center economics, was quoted in the same article as saying-

“The convention business is a disaster everywhere,” Professor Sanders said. “Simply building more space gets you nothing more than a big empty building. And to put it in a place where there aren’t any hotels, restaurants or amenities next door is to doom it to serving only a local or metropolitan market.”

The bold part is Aqueduct and the surrounding area in a nutshell. According the Crain's New York, part of the $4 Billion to be spent will be on transit, which includes a renovation of the stations in the area and a connection the JFK Airtrain- a waste, given that Airtrain is meant to be a and airport to subway connection, not to serve a neighborhood. A better way to spend part of those $4 Billion would be to reactive the abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, which, for the most part, is intact, but outrun by vegetation. That's where the abandoned rail line comes into place. Taken out of service by the Long Island Railroad in 1962, but never formally sold or closed, it could be reactivated at any time, since the LIRR never formally filed the paperwork to abandon the line with the FRA. Why? Because it was intended to be connected with the IND Queens Blvd Line (E-F-M-R) to provide a quicker service to Midtown from the Rockaways, as per the plans from the IND Second System from the 1930's. Here is where the High Line comes in.

Given the fact that the ROW (right-of-way) has been abandoned since 1962, and the fact that vegetation has grown and very much taken over the ROW, there are proposals to turn it into a park, or a railtrail, modeled after the High Line. From the NY Daily News-

A plan to transform an abandoned rail line into a park in southern Queens is generating a lot of buzz, but a group of transit advocates has another vision.....They believe the tracks, which have sat idle for five decades, should be reactivated to give southern Queens residents an easier commute to Manhattan. “Certainly a quick trip to JFK Airport from the core of the city is something people have talked about from Year One,” said George Haikalis, a civil engineer who heads the Institute for Rational Mobility, a nonprofit umbrella group for transit advocates. “Nobody in the rest of the world would be so dumb as to let a valuable asset like that sit there.”

But the people for are pushing to turn the ROW into the park, known as the QueensWay, pushed back, saying-

Andrea Crawford, the chairwoman of Community Board 9 who also is a member of Friends of the QueensWay, said a park would enhance the neighborhoods and prevent future over-development. “No one disagrees that the Rockaways are underserved by public transportation,” she said. “But to say this particular right of way could be a viable rail of some sort does not have a basis in reality.” Aside from deteriorated tracks and infrastructure, the line runs close to schools and homes that did not exist when it was first constructed, she said.

That is BS. The neighborhoods that this ROW passes through, as Assemblyman Philip Goldfeder, who represents the Rockaways, noted that-

Those same communities that are pushing this proposal are privileged with commutes of 30 minutes or less to midtown Manhattan....I believe southern Queens and Rockaway would be better served if this forgotten track once again fulfilled its original purpose as a railroad."

The ROW, being that it was never formally abandoned, is MTA and city property, and they could reactive it at any given time, even if they (those at QueensWay) oppose it. Those who argue that the it should be converted into parkland, while admitting that the Rockaways, which would be better serve by reactivating the ROW, suffer from a lack of transit options, are being selfish and hypocritical. Compared to the construction of the Second Avenue Sagas and East Side Access, reactivation of this ROW is cheap and efficient. And there is room between the Woodhaven Blvd and 63rd Road stations for a spur to come off the IND Queens Blvd Line (it was made in anticipation of this) and serve the ROW (It has been discussed in numerous transit-related forums). And, as it was originally built for railroad, it was ballasted and built with steel and concerte underpinnings, it would provide a far quieter and more comfortable experience for those living around the ROW should it ever be reactivated. As per the comparison to the High Line, it's not a good one. First off, the High Line already had several advantages prior to it being built, advantages that QueensWay doesn't have. These are

• The High Line was already located in a pedestrian heavy neighborhood, which was already a major tourist attraction (Chelsea, the Village, Meatpacking District). Where QueensWay (or the ROW) is located, it is less pedestrian friendly, and more car-friendly. 
• QueensWay doesn't really have a good location trasnit wise- the nearest subway stop from the proposed start is about half a mile away (Rego Park, Queens).
• The High Line also had a dedicated corp of volunteers and had cash on hand to organize and clean up the Line. 

Referring to the part that this park would prevent "overdevelopment," well, not really. When the High line opened up- it kicked off a real estate boom there-and raised property values around the area-the same thing would happen with QueensWay, but with a lesser effect. Why? Basically, it's not located in Manhattan.

Reactivating the Row with a subway, with fast and direct acces to Midtown, would better serve the area and raise property values more then a park would. It's been in the works for about 50 years now. Let's not waste the opportunity to do so now. Because once this chance is gone and the ROW converted to parkland, the city would lose a great chance to improve it's transit network, and finally bring better service to the Rockaways, something we've promised it to since the 1930's.  

Today & In response to Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

I am living in a peculiar situation when it comes to gay rights. For those who read this blog, you most likely know that I am a supporter of gay rights, especially when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to marry or not. I am also a Catholic, albeit a very liberal one. On June 24, New York became the sixth state to legalize Same-Sex Marriage by a very close vote, 33 in favor to 29 against. While I cheered this decision, let us just say that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the leader of the Brooklyn & Queens Diocese (which is the Diocese my church is situated) was not. In an editorial which appeared in the New York Daily News, he slammed the decision, calling it a tragedy in which we

....we no longer understand the primary purpose of marriage as the institution by which a man and woman bring new life into the world and teach the child to become a productive citizen....Marriage is reduced to an empty honor....

The following parts of this post will be a reply to the Bishop in charge of the Diocese in which I live in, thereby indirectly challenging a superior. And so I begin. 

He begins his argument by stating that society values it's young, no question about that. However, it is in the third paragraph in which he states that

Sociologists and psychologists agree that stable families where a mother and father live together in a loving union are a key predicator of a child's future health, well-being and success.

You may ask yourselves, Well, this paragraph is innocent, he's just saying that a children raised with both parents is crucial to success  No question about that. The problem here is that when you dig deeper into the argument, he is implying that a child raised with a gay or a lesbian couple cannot have raise a child as well as a straight couple can. Not so, states the American Psychological Association, together with the California Psychological Association,  The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, in which it stated in a brief filed in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there is no scientific basis to support the claim that Gay Couples cannot raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple, and in the case that they have children, their children are just as healthy or well adjusted as one raised with heterosexual parents. (Section IV, Subsection B.)  In their brief, they state

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature....Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

With just this excerpt from their massive 57 page brief, it smashes the poorly disguised argument of my dear Bishop. I mentioned earlier in this post that the bishop claimed that marriage had been reduced to an empty honor. To address this concern- when has marriage has ever been completely respected- it has almost never been. Men have always cheated on their wives and vice versa. People have always divorced people, maintained other spouses, etc- if marriage was ever sanity, Henry VIII would never split off from the church over some pathetic divorce.  Today, there is no doubt that marriage is not as respected, if it even was.  

-------------------------------------

Today is July 24, 2011. Today was the first day in which we extending the meaning of "with liberty and justice to all" to a group of people who were being denied those rights for years- the LGBT community. For the first time, same-sex couples were given the right to marry in the state, giving them equal standing with straight couples. Yet not everyone greeted this with open arms, of course. We had the usual protesters- the National Organization of Marriage, State Senator Ruben Diaz, and evangelicals. Even though I disagree with them, I usually would get along with them, as they are very civil. And then we have those who feel the need to stoop down to the level and behavior of a spoiled five-year old child. Those people, as we all know, is the good ol' Westboro Baptist Church. Most people heard of them in the landmark Supreme Court Case Synder v. Phelps in which a father of fallen solider sued the WBC for damages following their protest of military funerals, in which they carried signs saying "God hates Fags" and "God hates America" and all. After hearing that New York State legalized same-sex marriage, they decided to come to protest, stating their reasons in typical language suitable of people who demeanor appears to be those of again, a spoiled five-year old child. Here they go.

WBC will picket the reprobates of fag-infested New York state to remind them that God defined marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman for life.That means NO fag marriage, no dyke marriage and no divorce + remarriage! For their defiance of their Lord, New Yorkers will suffer the wrath of God being poured out on them from the sky, just as others in history who have followed this path experienced.

Right. If I'm a fag infested person, as they call, for supporting equality and fulfilling the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" so I'm proud to be one. If I am to be called a reprobate, so be it, and I'm proud of it, basking in the comfort that I'm being called this for supporting the civil rights of the LGBT community. These 'fags' as the WBC calls them, are real people, people who deserve the right to marry and love whomever they choose, who deserve the rights we all enjoy. If I'm defying the lord, so be it. If I have to suffer the wrath of god  from the sky, I'll be happy to to, because I'm doing so to guarantee rights for all.  I saw them today as I was going to the Brooklyn DA's office for my Mock Trial Meeting, and I just ignored them. Because that is what need to do. Ignore them, and take comfort at whatever names they call us, because we should be proud to be 'fags' if it means fighting for the rights of the LGBT community.

Just some food for thought. Enjoy.

First do this, than you can have that.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the MTA, is vital to the City of New York, and to a varying degree, the State of New York. It provides twenty-four hour subway service around the city, as well as operating countless bus routes in and around the city. It is one of the big selling points the city and the state has to offer to tourists, new residents and businesses alike. It provides rail service up to the outer reaches of Long Island of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and bus service with Long Island Bus. It also provides rail service into parts of Upstate New York and Connecticut with Metro-North Railroad.

However, for all the benefits the MTA provides, it gets constantly shortchanged by the State of New York and for the services it provide to Nassau County via Long Island Bus.

Every year, when the state has a budget gap to fill, it always takes a swipe at the funding it is supposed to provide the MTA, giving it less and less every year, not realizing that it is putting the economic health of the city and the state on risk- forcing the MTA to do what must do with much less- thus forcing it to cut back service like it did in 2010, when it cut two subway lines, reduced or completely eliminated 110 bus routes and scaled back service on the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North. All of this would have been avoided had the state met it's financial commitments to the MTA- and when the MTA had to these cuts, since by law it must have a balanced budget- lawmakers blasted the MTA, either completely forgot they were responsible, were clueless, or were just being opportunists- in other words, hypocrites. Now, when the MTA needs funding the most, they want to eliminate the payroll tax at exactly the wrong time- thereby forcing the MTA to possibly make even more cuts. So, if they want to take away the payroll tax, they are going to have to give up something in return. So here they are....

1. Create a transit "lockbox" to protect dedicated state aid toward the MTA from the hands of the state legislature and senate- by law or preferably, amending the State Constitution.       
2. Introduce Congestion Pricing or 'Traffic Pricing' to the city- A fee would be charged on all non-emergency cars  entering Manhattan below 61st Street, either $6 in both directions or a flat out fee of $12- or install it on all the 'free' East/Harlem River Bridges- in effect raising the area up to Inwood- and provide some much needed cash to the MTA-be it for the Capital Budget or the regular budget. Either way, this money would be for the sole use of the MTA.
3. Re-introduce the Commuter Tax- This would also provide a dedicated source funding to the MTA and would be applicable only to jobs here in the city. 
4. Reduce, but not completely take away the payroll tax- reduce the the areas affected for example, or the tax by 4-9 cents to 30-25 cents  out of 100 dollars-still a tax reduction either way. 
5. Or adopt a mixture of all four.  

Some will most likely bring up the statement "Privatize the MTA!" To all those who say that- it's not possible. No private company will be able to run what the MTA runs without massive public subsides or by raising fares drastically, as well as reducing services. If anyone volunteers to run the MTA without raising fares, scaling back services and requiring massive public subsides- in short as a private company- please let me know, let the MTA know, and let the city and state know. Oh, and let us know if you can turn out a profit. 'Cause if that happens, then we can talk.

Utter Hypocrite(s)...

Instead of spending attention on serious matters like the state budget, State Legislators Bill Perkins and Shirley Huntley of Queens are going after Charter Schools. What is really damning is that Perkins attended an upscale private school, went to Brown University, and now is try to deny the same chance for millions of New York City kids. For example, he is going after them because they are "rife with corruption and are being pillaged for profit". With the heck is he thinking? If Charter Schools were corrupt, would they be posting about 95-100% proficiency in English, and about 95% in math? Another dumb reason, "Over saturation- meaning too many Charter Schools per neighborhood. What? If that was even possible, I would swim in Newtown Creek. It's not true in Harlem, which he represents, in where which there is of 7,000 applications for just 1,100 seats. What? How dumb is that? No wonder we finished nearly dead last in the "Race to the Top" grant competition.

Perkins and Huntley are promoting a race to the bottom. The kids (like me) will end up being the losers.

Sometimes you have to wonder weather he really went to an upscale private school, or if he did go to Brown University. Because after seeing this, I doubt he ever did.