Comments on: Overview

By: Tough times for transit « Fare Enough

Tough times for transit « Fare Enough — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:06:06 +0000

[...] Transit in America [...]

By: Kelly McClaughlin

Kelly McClaughlin — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:58:29 +0000

Jones,

What I’ve heard being discussed is the way to go. In the story, it states that transits have never failed to make a payment, instead this is the insurance giants (who mostly foreign and currently struggling financially) attempting to reap a windfall. The solution to this problem should be an excise tax on any insurer attempting to reap a termination payment. Why have American tax payers on the hook for a foreign entity to propser? I don’t blame the transits for entering into these transactions, especially given the lack of federal and state funding for programs like high speed rail, amtrak and passenger rail. Rail appears to be always one of the first appropriations cut within annual budgetary discussions.

By: P Jones

P Jones — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:42:59 +0000

I’m at a lost of sympathy toward to Transit Agencies, its executive officers, their boards of directors and the local and state officials responsible for oversight.

Its obvious that DC Metro was taking with both hands without thought as to why banks, of all entities, would make a deal which would be of its benefit and against those of the public. Quite simply, the banks gave the transit authority to get a bit too cute and now its biting them on the backside. They can blame the Federal government all they want, but they should blame their legal and financial counsel (which I bet are now working elsewhere, benefiting for these maneuvers[ just like the government’s counsel who helped formulate NAFTA’s Chtp. 11) and their wide-eyed greed. These quasi-private transit units are never held accountable, so yet another series of bailouts will occur regarding their lost of subsidies and the gross windfall gamble they took in what they thought was a mutually salubrious deal with the devil called the American bank. Zero-Sum.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:35:36 +0000

OK so let me get this straight …. the Clinton administration promoted a scheme to fund our woefully under funded transit systems by giving tax breaks to banks in return. And then did not see fit to ensure that our collectively owned transit systems didn’t sign usurious contracts. What were the terms of the contract? Where those terms standard sale lease back terms? Also, shouldn’t have the terms been essentially the same as a muni bond when the the default insurer is downgraded, since transit authorities’ payments to the banks feels a lot more like a muni-bond payment than an airline paying rent on a plane. And shouldn’t it be somewhere in the law that if you enter into a contract with a public entity the terms are de-facto public (excluding national security issues)

By: Tshombe Sampson

Tshombe Sampson — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:40:45 +0000

The problem as presented in the story should have been a simple one to solve. If the only issue with the lease back financing was a technical breach of contract due to a fall in AIG’s credit rating, then the solution is to deem the the breach immaterial, and not a technical violation, as long as the transit agencies are making their appropriate payments. This then prevents the banks from demanding higher payments from transit agencies when no material breach has actually occurred. The power to deem the fall in AIG’s rating to be immaterial rests with the legal system which has the inherent power to make this determination. Congress and state legislatures can probably do the same through the legislative process. That would be better than bailing out AIG.

By: Allen Tacy

Allen Tacy — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:19:31 +0000

Americans are discovering that they can drive less, use transit more, and realize substantial savings in their pocketbooks. At the same time, increasing transit use is a major key to winning the war of climate change, winning the war against highway congestion. Forcing transit to cut service and raise fares defeats these goals.

By: Martha Maiden

Martha Maiden — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:59:17 +0000

It is little stated that highways are also “subsidized”. While emphasizing that bus and subway fares do not cover full costs, seldom is it mentioned that without good roads, commuting by car would not be possible. Before the “super highway” initiative, in my childhood, a good way to take a trip was by train. Now Amtrak must be castigated for seeking “subsidies”. The full cost of traveling by cars, right down to the gasoline prices and the environmental effects, is not really taken into account in today’s America.