Just when I thought Cuomo couldn't stoop any lower...

[Torie]

What is Cuomo's motive for all of this as alleged?  Why would you want to gratuitously shut down the MTA?  Why would he want to give greater subsidies for highway tolls upstate than subway tolls in the City? The whole thing doesn't quite hang together for me. I bet Cuomo is glad Silver is gone however.

Person A:

White guy, 2 kids, house mortgage, swing voter, makes $120k a year, lives in Nyack, drives a car, uses the subway 1 every two weeks or so. 

vs.

Person B:

Black woman, 3 kids, renter, votes for Democrats 100% of the time, lives in Brooklyn, makes $45k a year. 

Who does Andrew Cuomo care about?  Who does the media, the powers at be and society at large care about?  Obvious, right?

If Andrew Cuomo can take from Person B and give to Person A, he will.  He worries about person A's property taxes, and bridge tolls, and wants to get his approval.  He doesn't care about Person B.  He takes her vote for granted and he realizes that she's been so beaten down by the system that she don't even care or pay attention.

Well said. And I really despise subsidies to the undeserving, un-poor. And what I despise typically makes for excellent politics, and both parties do it - a lot. If I ran things, the transfer payment system would be revised - drastically. But I won't be running things, so the undeserving, un-poor are safe pretty much with their transfer payments, including myself. Boo!

[traininthedistance]

The "best information they had" would have been to listen to the actual professionals at the MTA, who knew that shutting things down this far in advance (when trains and buses can in fact run in a fair amount of snow)

But 2 feet? Even if you could get the buses running, someone still has to get there to drive it. I'm not talking about underground subway trains that run automatically. Although I imagine people still have to be there to oversee it? People that should probably be home if there's that much snow.

As far as the subways go... they don't care about snow!  Much of the system is underground, and most of the aboveground portions actively prefer to keep the trains running– not just because of the insane headache that is shutting down and starting up again– because that's the best way to clear snow off the tracks!  They would have shut down those tracks that are in depressed open cuts, but that's a very small portion of the system.

In point of fact, as far as the snow-clearing goes, SEPTA in Philly kept running trains overnight when they don't usually otherwise, for that exact reason.

The MTA knows this, because they are professionals that understand operations, so when the surprise dictum from Cuomo came down, remember that they kept the ghost trains running and keeping most of the system running would have been the right thing even had 2-3 feet of snow fallen.  I mean, the subways didn't shut down for the Blizzard of '96, as pointed out above.

But of course, Cuomo is above the degrading gruntwork of listening to people who know what they're talking about.

[Smash255]

What is Cuomo's motive for all of this as alleged?  Why would you want to gratuitously shut down the MTA?  Why would he want to give greater subsidies for highway tolls upstate than subway tolls in the City? The whole thing doesn't quite hang together for me. I bet Cuomo is glad Silver is gone however.

Person A:

White guy, 2 kids, house mortgage, swing voter, makes $120k a year, lives in Nyack, drives a car, uses the subway 1 every two weeks or so. 

vs.

Person B:

Black woman, 3 kids, renter, votes for Democrats 100% of the time, lives in Brooklyn, makes $45k a year. 

Who does Andrew Cuomo care about?  Who does the media, the powers at be and society at large care about?  Obvious, right?

If Andrew Cuomo can take from Person B and give to Person A, he will.  He worries about person A's property taxes, and bridge tolls, and wants to get his approval.  He doesn't care about Person B.  He takes her vote for granted and he realizes that she's been so beaten down by the system that she don't even care or pay attention.

Person A in this situation also had the roads closed down.  This was projected to be a MAJOR storm, and it was about 40 miles east of NYC.  Much of the system outside of Manhattan runs above ground (especially in Queens and the Bronx)

[traininthedistance]

Much of the system outside of Manhattan runs above ground (especially in Queens and the Bronx)

Take a look at my post directly above yours for an explanation why that isn't actually a good reason for this no-warning system shutdown, which the MTA neither wanted nor needed.

[traininthedistance]

Gratifying to hear that our Public Advocate, Tish James, gets it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize these sorts of things are mostly grandstanding, but sometimes it's what ya gotta do.

[emailking]

As far as the subways go... they don't care about snow!  Much of the system is underground, and most of the aboveground portions actively prefer to keep the trains running– not just because of the insane headache that is shutting down and starting up again– because that's the best way to clear snow off the tracks!  They would have shut down those tracks that are in depressed open cuts, but that's a very small portion of the system.

In point of fact, as far as the snow-clearing goes, SEPTA in Philly kept running trains overnight when they don't usually otherwise, for that exact reason.

The MTA knows this, because they are professionals that understand operations, so when the surprise dictum from Cuomo came down, remember that they kept the ghost trains running and keeping most of the system running would have been the right thing even had 2-3 feet of snow fallen.  I mean, the subways didn't shut down for the Blizzard of '96, as pointed out above.

But of course, Cuomo is above the degrading gruntwork of listening to people who know what they're talking about.

But what I'm saying is, if they keep the trains running overnight, aren't there employees who have to be at their work stations and oversee that whole process? E.g. to handle any problems that arise?

[traininthedistance]

BUMP

It occurs to me that maybe I conceded too much: there's a case to be made that you don't need to build a replacement at all! 

My practical side is undecided as to whether the idea to just not replace the TZB when it reaches the end of its life is, erm, a bridge too far in terms of short-term impacts (to say nothing of political backlash from folks who benefit from the perverse subsidies/don't have the imagination to see a better alternative).  But the Cap'n is absolutely right about the environmental, fiscal, and social costs of locking the region into continued car-dependency.  Any sane discussion would have had his point of view in the mix, pushing the Overton Window in a more sustainable direction.

Alas.

[bedstuy]

BUMP

It occurs to me that maybe I conceded too much: there's a case to be made that you don't need to build a replacement at all! 

My practical side is undecided as to whether the idea to just not replace the TZB when it reaches the end of its life is, erm, a bridge too far in terms of short-term impacts (to say nothing of political backlash from folks who benefit from the perverse subsidies/don't have the imagination to see a better alternative).  But the Cap'n is absolutely right about the environmental, fiscal, and social costs of locking the region into continued car-dependency.  Any sane discussion would have had his point of view in the mix, pushing the Overton Window in a more sustainable direction.

Alas.

You forget that moderate swing voters who live in the suburbs and need this bridge to drive to the Galleria Mall are better than us.   We're disgusting licentious city dwellers and they're pious Cincinnatus-type gentlemen farmers. 

Another fun fact about our beloved Governor, he's trying to steal money earmarked for water pollution management to build this bridge.  As if a bridge is a means of combating water pollution? 

[Simfan34]

BUMP

It occurs to me that maybe I conceded too much: there's a case to be made that you don't need to build a replacement at all! 

This is just too much for me to buy. Sorry.

[traininthedistance]

BUMP

It occurs to me that maybe I conceded too much: there's a case to be made that you don't need to build a replacement at all! 

This is just too much for me to buy. Sorry.

It might be too much for me, too, at the end of the day– but it deserves a fair hearing, it deserves to be on the table.

[cinyc]

BUMP

It occurs to me that maybe I conceded too much: there's a case to be made that you don't need to build a replacement at all! 

My practical side is undecided as to whether the idea to just not replace the TZB when it reaches the end of its life is, erm, a bridge too far in terms of short-term impacts (to say nothing of political backlash from folks who benefit from the perverse subsidies/don't have the imagination to see a better alternative).  But the Cap'n is absolutely right about the environmental, fiscal, and social costs of locking the region into continued car-dependency.  Any sane discussion would have had his point of view in the mix, pushing the Overton Window in a more sustainable direction.

Alas.

There is no question that the Tappan Zee Bridge needs to be replaced.  It is literally falling down, and will cost more in the long run to continually fix and maintain than to build a new bridge.  The Thruway Authority spent hundreds of millions in recent years to maintain the current bridge, including fixing gaping holes in the deck.  The bridge was built on rotten wooden pilings instead of steel or concrete because of a steel shortage during the Korean War when it was built.

Pipe dreams like tearing down and not replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge are simply not palatable to commuters in the northern suburbs.  More vehicles cross the Tappan Zee Bridge than the Lincoln Tunnel to Manhattan.  Where would all that traffic go?  And getting rid of the bridge would make it nearly impossible for Rockland County residents to commute to jobs in White Plains and vice versa. 

Pipe dreams like building train lines along the bridge simply don't make sense.  Most of Rockland and Westchester Counties do not have the density to support trains from nowhere to nowhere, and there's little to no capacity to add more trains to Grand Central during rush hour, so routing Rockland's Metro North trains to Grand Central instead of Hoboken isn't feasible.  Bus transit is the best option, as it is flexible and doesn't require a high cost investment.  But, for some reason, urban planners don't like buses.  Nevertheless, the new bridge was designed to add transit later, if it becomes feasible.

The fact is that fixed mass transit systems don't make sense everywhere.  Cars and buses make more sense in less dense areas, which is what most of New York's northern suburbs are.

[emailking]

As far as the subways go... they don't care about snow!  Much of the system is underground, and most of the aboveground portions actively prefer to keep the trains running– not just because of the insane headache that is shutting down and starting up again– because that's the best way to clear snow off the tracks!  They would have shut down those tracks that are in depressed open cuts, but that's a very small portion of the system.

In point of fact, as far as the snow-clearing goes, SEPTA in Philly kept running trains overnight when they don't usually otherwise, for that exact reason.

The MTA knows this, because they are professionals that understand operations, so when the surprise dictum from Cuomo came down, remember that they kept the ghost trains running and keeping most of the system running would have been the right thing even had 2-3 feet of snow fallen.  I mean, the subways didn't shut down for the Blizzard of '96, as pointed out above.

But of course, Cuomo is above the degrading gruntwork of listening to people who know what they're talking about.

But what I'm saying is, if they keep the trains running overnight, aren't there employees who have to be at their work stations and oversee that whole process? E.g. to handle any problems that arise?

I guess this isn't going to get a response. But so the post isn't left hanging out there, my point is that it is a possible safety issue if employees have to show up to work to oversee the subway.

I'm assuming the trains cannot be kept running without any employees at all at the various stations to make sure everything is running properly. If that's wrong, then OK. But I'm going on that assumption, and it seems like a reasonable one to me.

Now given that people have to show up to work for this purpose, there are various logistical complications that arise. For one, it is a safety issue for the people who have the get to work in the predicted 20 inches of snow. Some of them might have issues or get stuck. This creates complications for snow removal because their vehicle may be in the way (even if that's out in the suburbs). That could also create obstacles for emergency vehicles. Moreover, if they get stuck and need to be rescued, that's more resources that have to be diverted. Not to mention that this requires a huge effort and is a major pain for the employees even if they can managed to show up with no complications.

If you shut down the subway entirely none of that is an issue. So there are certainly benefits to shutting the system down entirely. The cons are that: 1. It will be harder to clear the snow from the tracks and 2. It is a headache to start the system up again. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Cuomo apparently decided the answer is yes. So the MTA had a different opinion, but the MTA doesn't have the same set of responsibilities as the governor.

You're assuming he made a knee jerk political decision, but there may have been a lot of substantive thought that went into the decision concerning the public safety and what is best for the region as the whole. The MTA may know the best way to clear the snow from the tracks, but that's not the only consideration. In the end the system got back up and running and while it may have been a pain for them, it apparently was not a disaster or we would have heard something by now.

Philly was not projected to get as much snow so I can entirely understand that a different conclusion was reached about whether the trains should be kept running.

[traininthedistance]

You're assuming he made a knee jerk political decision, but there may have been a lot of substantive thought that went into the decision concerning the public safety and what is best for the region as the whole. The MTA may know the best way to clear the snow from the tracks, but that's not the only consideration. In the end the system got back up and running and while it may have been a pain for them, it apparently was not a disaster or we would have heard something by now.

I don't assume that he pulled it out of his ass... I know for 100 percent sure.  The MTA has a standard operating procedure for winter storms, from Plan I up to Plan V.  They were all set to go with a Plan V:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plan V shuts down parts of the system, yes.  It does not shut down the entire system.  The idea that Cuomo's preening panic had more "substantive thought" in it than a carefully-prepared MTA action plan based on the experience of previous storms... utterly beggars belief.  (Also, as I keep mentioning and the Cuomo defenders keep forgetting, if there was any "substantive thought" that went into this plan, the MTA and de Blasio and other folks whose business it is to know and put into action this plan would have heard about it before the press conference, rather than be surprised and blindsided by it.)

As for the whole "shutting down all the roads and how will workers get there?" bit... remember that a lot of those subway workers would in fact take the subways home, so even if they needed to run on reduced staff they can still run.  But anyway that shutdown was a bad idea (for the whole region) and would have been even had we gotten those three feet.  Encourage people to stay home, sure.  Shut down nonessential services, of course.  But, like, you're still going to need ambulance drivers and police/fire and hospital workers and people who have gone into labor and... you get the picture.  A certain amount of essential service workers and emergencies will have to be on the roads and on the job no matter what, and, well, transit workers count as essential.

[cinyc]

Why does the fact that exurban commuters dislike removing the Tappan Zee make it a "pipe dream"? Traffic levels and patterns of development are largely dependent on the means of transportation that are available. We could just as plausibly say that spending at least $6 billion to construct another bridge spanning the widest portion of the Hudson River is a pipe dream.

Because those suburban (not exurban - the NYC exurbs don't start until you go further north) commuters are voters and they would vote out any politician who wants to tear down their way to get to their jobs and to New York City.  The commuting patterns and patterns of development are already there.  It's a non-starter.

The new bridge will be funded one way or another.  It's only a question of how.

[traininthedistance]

Why does the fact that exurban commuters dislike removing the Tappan Zee make it a "pipe dream"? Traffic levels and patterns of development are largely dependent on the means of transportation that are available. We could just as plausibly say that spending at least $6 billion to construct another bridge spanning the widest portion of the Hudson River is a pipe dream.

Because those suburban (not exurban - the NYC exurbs don't start until you go further north) commuters are voters and they would vote out any politician who wants to tear down their way to get to their jobs and to New York City.  The commuting patterns and patterns of development are already there.  It's a non-starter.

The new bridge will be funded one way or another.  It's only a question of how.

Okay, the TZB is a $6 billion lifeline for Rockland County's 300K people.  That's ridiculously simplistic–how many people in Rockland actually need it for their commute, as opposed to just working anywhere on that side of the Hudson or somewhere sufficiently north/south where another bridge is just as good?  But let's roll with it for the sake of argument; perhaps there are a few people commuting from Westchester to Rockland so why not.  $6 billion for 300K people, that's $20,000 per person, okay.

It would only be fair, then, for the MTA to get $160 billion for their capital needs within New York City (many of which are objectively more urgent that a TZB replacement), going by that same formula of $20K for eight million of us.  Unless, of course, you think of city dwellers as less than fully human or something.

[cinyc]

Okay, the TZB is a $6 billion lifeline for Rockland County's 300K people.  That's ridiculously simplistic–how many people in Rockland actually need it for their commute, as opposed to just working anywhere on that side of the Hudson or somewhere sufficiently north/south where another bridge is just as good?  But let's roll with it for the sake of argument; perhaps there are a few people commuting from Westchester to Rockland so why not.  $6 billion for 300K people, that's $20,000 per person, okay.

It would only be fair, then, for the MTA to get $160 billion for their capital needs within New York City (many of which are objectively more urgent that a TZB replacement), going by that same formula of $20K for eight million of us.  Unless, of course, you think of city dwellers as less than fully human or something.

Your claim that only Rockland County residents use the Tappan Zee Bridge is simply wrong.  Again, more vehicles cross the Tappan Zee Bridge each day than the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels into Manhattan - about 140,000 vehicles per day.  That's about 50,000,000 vehicles per year.  Where do you think all that traffic would go if you tore down the bridge and didn't replace it?  You would have to widen I-84, which is only two lanes in much of Dutchess and Putnam Counties, and perhaps even I-684 and I-287.  And the George Washington Bridge can't take much additional traffic from Orange and Rockland County residents looking to get to Westchester or New York City.

You also neglect to understand that most of the costs for the new bridge will be paid for with toll revenue.  The cost that the state is bearing is much less than $6 billion.  The Thruway Authority, paid for with toll revenue, will be picking up most of the tab.

The MTA is spending far more than $6 billion on its projects, like the LIRR's way over budget and delayed East Side Access project, the Second Avenue Subway and the 7 line extension.  The proposed MTA capital budget for 2015-2019 is $22 billion - and that doesn't include longer-term projects that have already been funded.  Not to mention, that unlike the Thruway Authority, the MTA is heavily subsidized by those who don't even set foot on their subways, trains, buses or bridges through sales and other regional taxes.