Port Authority Financing

I noticed on the bottom of the older electric MU cars, there was a statement saying something like "cars purchased from funds from a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bond." Why would the Port Authority be providing funds if the MTA has the power to sell bonds? Why would they get involved with the MTA anyway?

Trains wrote:I noticed on the bottom of the older electric MU cars, there was a statement saying something like "cars purchased from funds from a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey bond." Why would the Port Authority be providing funds if the MTA has the power to sell bonds? Why would they get involved with the MTA anyway?

The PA gets involved in all sorts of stuff in the area. They're putting up money for some of the new bi-level cars that NJ Transit is getting, they're putting up some money for the planned new tunnels under the Hudson, and it isn't difficult to imagine they've put some money into rail on this side of the Hudson.

Did the PANY&NJ have anything to do with the takeover of the LIRR from Pennsy in 1966?

I know the MTA was created in 1965, so perhaps the PANY&NJ (which has been around since 1921) maybe used to be a lot more involved back then in the affairs of the LIRR during the MTA's infancy (including financing the purchase of the first M-1's)?

I seem to recall reading that the PA owned and leased M1s 9001-9270 I believe. On the B ends down below it said THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY OWNER AND LESSOR - they also had title to a few M3s as well. MACTRAXX

Yes, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the M-1 cars and leases them to the LIRR.

The majority of M-3 cars were purchased with funds from the Transportation Bond Act and are owned by the LIRR. I believe several are owned by the PA.

The GP38's were owned by the MTA.

There are differing reasons for doing all this including access to funding, interest rates and availability of funds. BAck in 1968, for example, investors would have been hard to find for a rail system that had few assets and a huge deficit. This would translate into high bonding costs. I believe the PA was able to secure bonds at a better rate because of their cash flow history.

The bonds offered by the MTA at the time were secured by passenger ticket sales. In fact, up until a few years ago, all ticket office bank deposits were placed in a special custodial account to secure bonds. Ticket clerks would remember the funny endorsement stamp they had to put on the checks.

Clem

I suppose that since the LIRR is more mature, they used their own means to purchase the M-7's and Bilevel sets.