# NYC Subway Ceiling Clinks



## ALC Rail Writer (Aug 18, 2009)

As reported here--



> Bricks from the curved ceiling at the 181st Street station on the 1 line fell 35 feet on to the track below around 10:30 p.m. Sunday, said NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges.
> No one was injured in the incident and a train that was in the station didn't take any major hits.
> 
> "The MTA faces extraordinary financial challenges, but this is no excuse to allow the subway system to fall
> ...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 18, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As reported here--
> 
> 
> > Bricks from the curved ceiling at the 181st Street station on the 1 line fell 35 feet on to the track below around 10:30 p.m. Sunday, said NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges.
> ...


Bloomberg seems to be running primarily on a platform of "fixing the MTA".


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't think anybody CAN fix the MTA without a major hit to half the metro area's ATMs...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 18, 2009)

The MTA is pretty decent on the whole. They just need double the funding. Bloomberg could probably finance that out of his pocket for four years if he really was serious about this...


----------



## AlanB (Aug 19, 2009)

What we really need is for Albany to step up to the plate. Of course we barely got them to agree to the funding plan that they did come up with. God forbid that we actually ask them to send us back a little more of the money that we send north for them to spread throughout the rest of the state.

Wish I could get that deal, have three quarters of my money coming from one source/area and only have to send half of it back for programs and projects within the area.


----------



## sechs (Aug 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Wish I could get that deal, have three quarters of my money coming from one source/area and only have to send half of it back for programs and projects within the area.


Now you know what California feels like....


----------



## transit54 (Aug 19, 2009)

sechs said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Wish I could get that deal, have three quarters of my money coming from one source/area and only have to send half of it back for programs and projects within the area.
> ...


Yup. And Burlington, for that matter. Though I think this area generates 2/3 of the revenue and gets about 1/3 back. Probably the case with any populated area...


----------



## DET63 (Aug 20, 2009)

In almost any state, the people in the capital and/or largest city will feel resentment towards the rest of the state, and vice versa. California is a difficult case because it has several large cities. In general, though, the tension is between San Francisco (and the Bay Area) on the one hand, and L.A. (and the Southland) on the other.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 22, 2009)

sechs said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Wish I could get that deal, have three quarters of my money coming from one source/area and only have to send half of it back for programs and projects within the area.
> ...


Actually I just discovered that California doesn't really have a right to feel that way. Yes, the past few years things have been that way. But not always. If one averages the data from 1981 - 2005 (2005 is the last year data is available from), one finds out that for every tax dollar spent to the Fed, they got $1.086 back in Federal spending. Now the last 5 years, Cali's returns have all been under 85 cents for each buck sent to the fed.

NY's 25 year average was $.8488.

Just for the record, I actually didn't go looking for this data because of your post. I actually went to find this data to rebut someone commenting on a news story on trains about how California was a state that seems to feel that they are entitled to things. In that reply I only took a 5 year sampling to show that the state that they were in was the entitlement state, since they were getting $1.483 in Louisiana for every dollar spent, as compared to Cali's 82.4 cents.

Just in case anyone's interested in how their state fares, you can find the data here.


----------



## sechs (Aug 22, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Just in case anyone's interested in how their state fares, you can find the data here.


I find their numbers suspect. The Tax Foundation has a definitive point of view, and its source for everything but the population numbers is itself.
When you go back to their source report, the Tax Foundation quotes its sources as the OMB and, again, itself. Of the numbers, the report states that the Foundation, "has developed a tax incidence model which apportions the federal tax burden among the states," without explanation of the model, let alone what is "tax burden."


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 23, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Here in Texas we have DFW vs. Houston vs. San Antonio vs. Austin!As the ads say:"Its a whole 'nother country! :lol:


----------



## George Harris (Aug 27, 2009)

For the people in big cities that feel like they are getting the short end of the stick on taxes: If you never go out of town by road, rail, or air, do not eat anything grown outside the city limits, all your electricity, gas, water, etc is sourced inside the city limits, then you have a right to feel that way. Otherwise, you don't. The countryside is actually supporting you. Particularly road. One lane-mile of road in an urban area is far more expensive than it is in rural areas. Most urban interstates and freeways would not come close to paying for their cost of their construction and maintenance out of gas taxes if they ran with cars in all lanes bumper to bumper at the speed limit. Probably not even if you could stack them two or three high. It is all those guys driving his pickup between Podunk and East Jerkwater over roads that cost very little to built and maintain that is paying gas taxes to the state for the state's share of the cost of urban roads.


----------

