Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dekalbavenue t1_jacb3q5 wrote

Reply to comment by ripstep1 in Feds not coming to MTA’s rescue under GOP House, Schumer says by newzee1

Because NYC alone contributes 8% of the entire country's GDP, far higher than any other city and higher than every state except California and Texas. It's in the Fed's interest that NYC is up and running.

59

CactusBoyScout t1_jacsa14 wrote

I remember reading years ago that NYC transit actually gets relatively little of its funding from the federal government compared to other global cities.

Supposedly other global cities have national governments that recognize how much of a return on investment their largest cities generate economically and so they support their infrastructure more. And other countries are more likely to have their seat of government in their largest city so the lawmakers are more keenly aware of its infrastructure.

But our federal government is sharply skewed in favor of rural states who don’t want to support big cities while taking huge subsidies for themselves.

12

Endofunctor t1_jadd3ck wrote

You think any of that would stop if they couldn't make it to the office on time? Doubt it, especially in a post-covid world.

2

dekalbavenue t1_jadmo49 wrote

It's not about going from 1.6 trillion to zero. It's about going from 1.6 trillion to 1.3 trillion (a loss of $300 billion) because the government couldn't bother to invest $3 billion. That's plausible if the MTA is dysfunctional to the point where economic decisions are made to account for it. To put it in perspective, the MTA strike in 2005 cost the city economy about $400 million a day. In 2023 dollars, that number would be closer to $615 million. Imagine if you will, a non functioning MTA that lasted a year. Or, a sub par functional MTA over a few years, say, over a presidential cycle.

Do you think hyperpartisanship for the benefit of Fox News viewers is worth $300 billion in lost public revenue?

2