[andy_wrote]

Yeah, I'd be very interested to learn about anything about the sensitivities of ridership to other external variables in general.

Looking at the article's linked presentation [1] and the MTA's most recent financial plan [2] it seems like all the hurt is coming from really huge declines in projected revenues - labor costs seem to be growing pretty reasonably but there's basically zero projected growth in fares. If someone can give me a layman's explanation of what "Capital and Other Reimbursements" is, which accounts for about a $500mm decline between 2019 and 20222, I'd be much obliged.

So I am curious how sensitive riders are to the increased service problems, how much that makes them switch out, to get some sense as to how much the signal improvements will help solve this problem. Also how much to a fare hike, which seems like the more straightforward answer in a vacuum (i.e. other than taxes or other government infusions). The MTA says in [1] that even "draconian service reductions would have a relatively small impact on the deficit."

[1] - http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed-Budget-... [2] - http://web.mta.info/news/pdf/MTA-2019-Final-Proposed-Budget-...

[bobthepanda]

Reducing service, unless you want to do it really painfully, is unlikely to do much in the long run. A good chunk of the costs are employee related (health/pensions) and debt service. The MTA shouldn't default on its bonds, and in NYS you can't constitutionally modify government pensions after they've been given. And the MTA hires as many drivers and buys trains and buses based on peak demand; cutting off-peak is unlikely to do much since you wouldn't be reducing the absolute number of drivers you need.

In fact, cutting off-peak services would probably worsen the budget outlook long-term, since the marginal cost of an off-peak service is very low.