N.J. Transit Trains Break Down at Rate Four Times U.S. Average

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/n-j-transit-trains-break-down-at-rate-four-times-u-s-average

New Jersey Transit commuter trains failed four times more than the U.S. average in 2014, as Governor Chris Christie continued diverting equipment funding to cover day-to-day expenses.
The railroad, the nation’s second-largest by ridership, recorded 213 major mechanical failures, according to figures posted Friday by the National Transit Database. That was 19 percent more than in 2013 and the most in at least four years. Nationally, 24 commuter railroads had an average 52 major failures in 2014.
New Jersey residents, who have one of the country’s longest average commutes, have been forced to pay more for mass transit as delays and breakdowns increase. In the year ended June 30, trains went an average 83,815 miles (135,000 kilometers) between breakdowns, the worst performance in at least four years, according to New Jersey Transit figures.

Only the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, serving greater Boston, had more breakdowns than New Jersey Transit in 2014, with 219 recorded, according to the database.

It is Christie's fault -- He is and has been against funding mass transit.  Now we are paying the price.  

Why immediately look for someone else to pay? How about the users of the service paying? Maybe if people did not complain so much about every fare increase.

bramzzoinks said:

Why immediately look for someone else to pay? How about the users of the service paying? Maybe if people did not complain so much about every fare increase.

You mean kind of like when anyone suggests raising the gas tax to fix our seriously deteriorating roads?

Gas taxes should be increased substantially. Though I would prefer a pay by mile model.

Whether they should or not was not my point. The complaining factor was. Everybody complains.

This is a case of government not investing in infrastructure.  Raising the gas tax is no longer going to be enough, in addition there needs to be investment on a national level in mass transit, especially in places where it takes cars off the road.

bramzzoinks said:

Gas taxes should be increased substantially. Though I would prefer a pay by mile model.

It effectively IS a pay by mile model, subject to differences in vehicle fuel efficiency.  But the latter is a choice of the vehicle owners.

bramzzoinks said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/n-j-transit-trains-break-down-at-rate-four-times-u-s-average




New Jersey Transit commuter trains failed four times more than the U.S. average in 2014, as Governor Chris Christie continued diverting equipment funding to cover day-to-day expenses.

We had that horror in the 70's and 80's when NYC subway maintenance was "deferred." They got away with it for awhile but then things started to break. Commuters were then guaranteed a breakdown a week.

bramzzoinks said:

Why immediately look for someone else to pay? How about the users of the service paying? Maybe if people did not complain so much about every fare increase.

Of course, highly utilized mass transit benefits car drivers too, so it isn't as simple as saying that transit users should pay the full cost.

Deodorant also benefits people other than the users but no one expects it to be subsidized by general tax revenue.

bramzzoinks said:

Deodorant also benefits people other than the users but no one expects it to be subsidized by general tax revenue.

Of course, if the person sitting next to me doesn't smell fresh and minty, it doesn't add an hour to my commute.

But it sure makes it seem that way.

Many NJT trains are old and prone to breakdowns, though I would like to see data on Amtrak trains, which are even older and I suspect break down with even more frequency.  With NJT and Amtrak trains breaking down, only two tunnels under the Hudson River, damage from Hurricane Sandy and the decrepit Penn Station, its no wonder our commuter rail system is so bad.  Eventually its time to pay for improvements, and that time is now (or was years ago).

bramzzoinks said:

Why immediately look for someone else to pay? How about the users of the service paying? Maybe if people did not complain so much about every fare increase.

When you're willing to pay the actual cost of the roads you drive to get to work in addition to the benefit you derive from living on a train line (e.g., increased property values), then we can talk.  Until then, please keep it down.

bramzzoinks said:

Why immediately look for someone else to pay? How about the users of the service paying? Maybe if people did not complain so much about every fare increase.

bramzzoinks said:

Deodorant also benefits people other than the users but no one expects it to be subsidized by general tax revenue.

The driving subsidy is the single largest governmental funds transfer/market distortion in the US.  Drivers pay a little more than 50% of the $153 billion annual cost of the highway system.  To make up the deficit, yearly everyone gives $30 billion to drivers at the state and local level, supplemented by $46 billion from the Feds.  Since $28 billon of that's from the Federal gas tax, if you want to just count general funds, that's $46 billion/year in what highway advocates incorrectly characterize as "user fees".  

http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending

Spending on mass transit pales in comparison at just under $60 billion.  If as you suggest transit riders pay their fullcost, ridership would plummet and those who can't afford cars would lose access to work, while still subsidizing drivers. And there'd be a lot more cars on the road. In reality, there would no longer be public transit as the outsized highway subsidies and governmental abuse destroyed the chance for transit to ever pay its own way, with a few worldwide exceptions (yes fellow transit buffs, I'm talking about Hong Kong). Since all transportation is subsidized, the hugely positive act of using mass transit is far more deserving of assistance than than encouraging the tremendous negative externalities caused by autos and trucks.

If everyone should pay their way, drivers will need to fork over at least twice what they do currently.  NJ Transit riders, on the other hand, have recently seen the biggest fare (tax) hikes in history and a crippling 90% slashing of state funds.  Transit riders have every right to loudly protest the grossly unfair treatment Christie has given them, as opposed to the state's pampered auto constituency.  As BG9 notes, the slow motion collapse of transit equipment and infrastructure had begun, with some unlucky soul plumetting down an elevator shaft at New Brunswick Station another early symptom.  Using capital funds for operating expenses as Transit is forced to do will have increasingly dangerous consequences, along with increasingly poor service. We've seen this movie many times before, and it took the City many billions and years to undo the damage.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/09/30/nj-transit-fare-hikes-in-effect-today-more-increases-could-be-coming-down-pike/

I'm glad to see you recognize driver's responsibilities, but further beating up on our state's beleaguered transit riders seems to dilute that.  Drivers here have gotten a free ride since Florio started borrowing to shore up the TTF.  Whitman and Christie launched it into the stratosphere, with the TTF now at its $15 billion borrowing limit, the minuscule gas tax only covering the yearly $1 billion debt service, and funds due to run out in July.  At that time, an orderly shutdown of the state highway network should take place, as it's wholly unsafe to operate it without any maintenance funds.  

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/03/christie-s-borrowing-binge-makes-transportation-trust-fund-run-dry/

^^What he said.

Well it depends where you drive. If you drive the Turnpike or GSP you are doing your share to cover the cost of operations. If you cross the Hudson or one of NYC's toll bridges you are covering far more than the cost of the bridge or tunnel you drive on. I have no problem with the Turnpike model.

Not sure if there's enough room on my driveway for a toll booth.

There is no question NJ under Christie's leadership has slashed the funding to NJ transit (and other mass transit as well) which is in line with him killing the tunnel project (for no good reason) and by the way he has also cut the transportation grants which help local towns repave major roads. 

Ridski, all you need is an EZ pass reader, not a full fledged toll booth

mikescott said:

There is no question NJ under Christie's leadership has slashed the funding to NJ transit (and other mass transit as well) which is in line with him killing the tunnel project (for no good reason) and by the way he has also cut the transportation grants which help local towns repave major roads. 

Ridski, all you need is an EZ pass reader, not a full fledged toll booth ">

I like to pay cash.

No reader needed. Your cellphone or other transponder in the vehicle is sufficient.

bramzzoinks said:

No reader needed. Your cellphone or other transponder in the vehicle is sufficient.

Oh good. For a second there I thought you were planning on having the state track and record our every movement through government funded spy satellites in some crazy Orwellian jackbooted nightmare land. 

bramzzoinks said:

Well it depends where you drive. If you drive the Turnpike or GSP you are doing your share to cover the cost of operations. If you cross the Hudson or one of NYC's toll bridges you are covering far more than the cost of the bridge or tunnel you drive on. I have no problem with the Turnpike model.

It's hard to imagine a more regressive model than what you propose. Though it might improve traffic if we keep those good-for-nothing poor people off the roads.

ridski said:

bramzzoinks said:

No reader needed. Your cellphone or other transponder in the vehicle is sufficient.

Oh good. For a second there I thought you were planning on having the state track and record our every movement through government funded spy satellites in some crazy Orwellian jackbooted nightmare land. 

I thought they did that already...

dave23 said:

bramzzoinks said:

Well it depends where you drive. If you drive the Turnpike or GSP you are doing your share to cover the cost of operations. If you cross the Hudson or one of NYC's toll bridges you are covering far more than the cost of the bridge or tunnel you drive on. I have no problem with the Turnpike model.

It's hard to imagine a more regressive model than what you propose. Though it might improve traffic if we keep those good-for-nothing poor people off the roads.

You pay for what you use. Target does not change prices based on income. So it is a regressive shopping experience.

bramzzoinks said:

You pay for what you use. Target does not change prices based on income. So it is a regressive shopping experience.

Target's not the only store to buy what one needs. And during tight months, a family can forego certain purchases. 

max_weisenfeld said:

^^What he said.

Disagree.

A good transportation system, which certainly includes roads, is in the public interest. Instead of saying drivers should pay their share or pay more, it should be paid by everyone using income tax. That includes mass transit.

Road use taxes are regressive. The poor minimum wage forces to commute by car pays the same gas tax rate as the millionaire driving to his business.

If we accept the argument that we shouldn't share, that users of government services be the ones that primarily pay, then be consistent. We should apply that to other government services.

Only have parents who send their kids to public school pay for public schools. Why should others have to subsidize them? What about our national parks? Don't subsidize the users of the parks. Mass transit? Don't subsidize. Have the users pay the full cost of mass transit.

Many feel vehicle transportation should not be subsidized whereas mass transit should be. They are the ones who can afford to live conveniently next to mass transit, like in Maplewood. I'm sure those who don't have that option, those who are forced to drive to work every day feel the opposite.

The auto industry should be contributing directly to the cost of the roads.  They build something that can only be used on roads and yet the railroads built their own tracks, tunnels, bridges etc. The infrastructure built for the auto industry was one giant subsidy.  And then they needed to be bailed out?  

For every new car sold they should have a 1% cost added on for roads, bridges and tunnels distributed to the states based on number of cars/trucks.  

mikescott said:

The auto industry should be contributing directly to the cost of the roads.  They build something that can only be used on roads and yet the railroads built their own tracks, tunnels, bridges etc. The infrastructure built for the auto industry was one giant subsidy.  And then they needed to be bailed out?  

For every new car sold they should have a 1% cost added on for roads, bridges and tunnels distributed to the states based on number of cars/trucks.  

We already have a tax for every new car sold (and even old cars). Its called a sales tax. In NJ its 7%.

You could add a 1% tax to car manufacturers. You may as well add the 1% to the sales tax because that 1% added tax will be passed to consumers.

You could "dedicate" that 1% to road maintenance. But don't expect the total amount for road maintenance to go up. What they will then do is reduce that amount from the general revenue budget. Its like when NY had Off Track Betting and politicians were hyping and selling OTB claiming the funds will go to education - new funded golden age for education. The reality was that the education subsidy from the general revenue budget was offset by the OTB "donation." Its a shell game.