MTA plans to add 300 new transit jobs
Part of the MTA's 2025-2029 Capital Plan, currently 'under negotiation in Albany,' will bring more construction projects in-house.
More Local News
Some $6 billion of work in the 2025-2029 budget will be completed by in-house workers over private contractors, according to David Soliman, vice president of subway facilities. This will require 300 more jobs to New York City Transit, which oversees subway and bus service, he said.
Some of these jobs will include interior staircase renovations, platform barrier installation, above-ground station roof and enclosure work, and work at shops and yards.
The union representing New York City transit workers said the new jobs were negotiated in Albany.
'We successfully made the case that work done by TWU members is of higher quality, more cost-effective, and is completed more quickly than projects given to private contractors,' TWU Local 100 President John Chiarello said. 'We fully support this capital plan and want to see it funded and implemented.'
More: Latest News from Around the Tri-State
The $68 billion 2025-2029 capital program was first released in September.
'Our capital plan is hanging in the balance,' MTA Chair Janno Lieber said. 'There is a lot at stake and we did adopt it some time ago, even though there's not a program on the table at this minute.'
To find open MTA jobs, click here.
Emily Rahhal is a digital reporter who has covered New York City since 2023 after reporting in Los Angeles for years. She joined PIX11 in 2024. See more of her work here and follow her on Twitter here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
Washington needs to get serious about robotics
After years of treating robotics policy as a novelty or niche concern, Washington is finally beginning to wake up to reality: we cannot win the race for artificial intelligence leadership if we ignore the robotics race. Artificial intelligence is software. Robotics is hardware. The two are inextricably linked. A national AI strategy that doesn't include robotics is not a national AI strategy but a mere half-measure. And as China pours state resources into dominating both AI and robotics — with over $350 billion in planned investment made over the past decade as part of its Made in China 2025 initiative — the United States risks falling behind in the physical deployment of smart systems across our economy, from the factory floor to the battlefield. Fortunately, there are signs of a long-overdue policy shift in the nation's capital. Several major think tanks and associations, including the Special Competitive Studies Project, the Association for Advancing Automation, and the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, have all recently called for urgent action and attention toward robotics. This spring, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party hosted a 'Robotics Symposium,' which marked one of the most focused congressional discussions to date on robotics competitiveness. And in May, a bipartisan group of lawmakers launched a reinvigorated Congressional Robotics Caucus, aiming to educate their colleagues and shape a comprehensive legislative agenda on robotics. These moves echo growing recognition across government that robotics is essential to our national competitiveness. Just last month, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick rightly called robotics 'the future of American manufacturing' and a critical pillar of domestic industrial revitalization. Over 50 organizations mentioned the importance of robotics in their submissions to the White House's National AI Action Plan, and many expect robotics-related recommendations to be incorporated into the Action Plan. But momentum alone isn't strategy. The U.S. needs a full-fledged national robotics strategy — one that ensures we out-innovate, out-produce, and out-compete global competitors. That means investing in next-generation robotics research and development, rebuilding our advanced manufacturing base, countering unfair trade practices, and equipping the American workforce with the skills to lead in robotics engineering, design, operations, and maintenance. An executive order is one way to do this. An executive order on robotics could meet the moment by mobilizing all relevant government agencies to prioritize robotics policies and unleash America's robotics industry. There are several meaningful actions that could help do so, including, but not limited to: The Office of Science and Technology, as the leading federal science and technology body, could organize and direct a whole-of-government strategy, establish a central robotics office in government and an interagency working group with academic and industry leaders. The Bureau of Industry and Security could investigate unfair trade practices by foreign competitors and recommend policy actions to secure the domestic robotics supply chain. Other agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as the nation's standards setting body, could develop technical standards associated with robotics and automated technologies. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as the nation's workplace safety governing body, could issue best practices for the deployment and usage of robotics to give industry increased confidence to buy and sell robotics. The National Science Foundation, as the nation's scientific research entity, could begin to prioritize grants and awards for applied robotics and support training and education opportunities in robotics. Congress could also take a big step this year by establishing a national commission on robotics, akin to successful commissions on key technology fields such as artificial intelligence, cyber and biotechnology, to identify specific recommendations to ensure the U.S. leads and doesn't fall behind other countries. Robotics drives productivity. It underpins national security. And it is poised to transform sectors ranging from agriculture to elder care. In short, robotics is the physical expression of American ingenuity — and it's time our policies and strategy reflected that. Washington must act with urgency. The robotics race is not just a subset of AI — it is the proving ground where AI becomes real. And it's a race we can't afford to lose.
Fox News
4 days ago
- Fox News
Trump's modest spending cuts package survives narrow Senate vote as some Republicans break ranks
What can you get for $9.4 billion? 3G Capital recently purchased footwear giant Skechers for $9.4 billion. $9.4 billion could cover your rent for a pretty nice apartment in New York City for more than 40,000 years. Yes, it will just be you and the cockroaches by then. Or, you could pay the cost of every major disaster in the past four decades – ranging from Chernobyl to Fukushima to Hurricane Sandy. But $9.4 billion isn't a lot when cast against nearly $7 trillion in annual spending by the federal government. And it's really not much money when you consider that the U.S. is about slip into the red to the tune of $37 trillion. Which brings us to the Congressional plan to cancel spending. That is, a measure from Republicans and the Trump Administration to rescind spending lawmakers already appropriated in March. The House and Senate are now clawing back money lawmakers shoved out the door for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid programs under USAID. The original proposal cut $9.4 billion. But that figure dwindled to $9 billion – after the Senate restored money for "PEPFAR," a President George W. Bush era program to combat AIDS worldwide. In other words, you may have a couple thousand years lopped off from your rent-controlled apartment in New York City. Of course that hinges on what Democratic mayoral nominee Zorhan Mamdani decides to do, should he win election this fall. Anyway, back to Congressional spending. Or "un-spending." The House passed the original version of the bill in June, 216-214. Flip one vote and the bill would have failed on a 215-215 tie. Then it was on to the Senate. Republicans had to summon Vice President Vance to Capitol Hill to break a logjam on two procedural votes to send the spending cancellation bill to the floor and actually launch debate. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage in the Senate. But former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., along with Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted nay – producing a 50-50 tie. Fox is told some Senate Republicans are tiring of McConnell opposing the GOP – and President Trump – on various issues. That includes the nay votes to start debate on the spending cancellation bill as well as his vote against the confirmation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in January. "He used to be the Leader. He was always telling us we need to stick together," said one GOP senator who requested anonymity. "Now he's off voting however he wants? How time flies." Note that McConnell led Senate Republicans as recently as early January. But McConnell ultimately voted for the legislation when the Senate approved it 51-48 at 2:28 am ET Thursday morning. Murkowski and Collins were the only noes. The services of Vice President Vance weren't needed due to McConnell's aye vote and the absence of Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. She fell ill and was admitted to George Washington Hospital for exhaustion. As for the senior senator from Alaska, one GOP senator characterized it as "Murkowski fatigue." "She always asking. She's always wanting more," groused a Senate Republican. Murkowski secured an agreement on rural hospitals in exchange for her vote in favor of the Big, Beautiful Bill earlier this month. However, Murkowski did not secure more specificity on the DOGE cuts or help with rural, public radio stations in Alaska on the spending cut plan. "My vote is guided by the imperative of coming from Alaskans. I have a vote that I am free to cast, with or without the support of the President. My obligation is to my constituents and to the Constitution," said Murkowski. "I don't disagree that NPR over the years has tilted more partisan. That can be addressed. But you don't need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting." In a statement, Collins blasted the Trump administration for a lack of specificity about the precision of the rescissions request. Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee in charge of the federal purse strings, also criticized the administration a few months ago for a paucity of detail in the President's budget. "The rescissions package has a big problem – nobody really knows what program reductions are in it. That isn't because we haven't had time to review the bill," said Collins in a statement. "Instead, the problem is that OMB (the Office of Management and Budget) has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process." Collins wasn't the only Republican senator who worried about how the administration presented the spending cut package to Congress. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., fretted about Congress ceding the power of the purse to the administration. But unlike Collins, Wicker supported the package. "If we do this again, please give us specific information about where the cuts will come. Let's not make a habit of this," said Wicker. "If you come back to us again from the executive branch, give us the specific amounts in the specific programs that will be cut." DOGE recommended the cuts. In fact, most of the spending reductions targeted by DOGE don't go into effect unless Congress acts. But even the $9.4 billion proved challenging to cut. "We should be able to do that in our sleep. But there is looking like there's enough opposition," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Fox Business. So to court votes, GOP leaders salvaged $400 million for PEPFAR. "There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. "You're still talking about a $9 billion rescissions package - even with that small modification." The aim to silence public broadcasting buoyed some Republicans. "North Dakota Public Radio - about 26% of their budget is federal funding. To me, that's more of an indictment than it is a need," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. But back to the $9 billion. It's a fraction of one-tenth of one percent of all federal funding. And DOGE recommended more than a trillion dollars in cuts. "What does this say for the party if it can't even pass this bill, this piddling amount of money?" yours truly asked Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. "I think we're going to lose a lot of credibility. And we should," replied Kennedy. But the House needed to sync up with the Senate since it changed the bill – stripping the cut for AIDS funding. House conservatives weren't pleased that the Senate was jamming them again – just two weeks after major renovations to the House version of the Big, Beautiful Bill. But they accepted their fate. "It's disappointing that we're $37 trillion in debt. This to me was low-hanging fruit," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo. "At the end of the day, I'll take a base hit, right? It's better than nothing." White House Budget Director Russ Vought is expected to send other spending cancellation requests to Congress in the coming months. The aim is to target deeper spending reductions recommended by DOGE. But it doesn't auger well for future rescissions bills if it's this much of a battle to trim $9 trillion. What can you get for that much money? For Republicans, it's not much. Republicans were swinging for the fences with spending cuts. But in the political box score, this is recorded as just a base hit.
New York Times
4 days ago
- New York Times
Wall St. Firms Are Buying Utilities to Tap Into the A.I. Boom
Large Wall Street investment firms are moving to acquire U.S. utility companies in an effort to benefit from the rising demand for electricity from data centers. But the deals are increasingly being contested by consumer groups who say they will lead to higher energy costs for residents. BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, last year proposed buying Minnesota Power, a utility that owns several power plants and thousands of miles of power lines that could help technology companies secure energy for their data centers. But a state administrative law judge recommended late Tuesday that Minnesota utility regulators deny the proposed acquisition sought by BlackRock's Global Infrastructure Partners division and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The utility provides power to 150,000 residential and business customers, largely in northern Minnesota, including Duluth and Grand Rapids. The acquisition appeared to be on a smoother glide path late last week when the Minnesota Department of Commerce removed its opposition to the deal and entered an agreement with the parties involved in the transaction. The recommendation of the administrative law judge, Megan J. McKenzie, is not binding, but it could sway the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, whose approval is necessary for the acquisition to advance. She highlighted concerns of opponents of the deal that the investment firms would prioritize making money over ensuring reliable electricity service, potentially harming consumers. 'The nonpublic evidence reveals the partners' intent to do what private equity is expected to do — pursue profit in excess of public markets through company control,' Judge McKenzie wrote. 'The partners themselves have carefully committed to do very little.' BlackRock did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Minnesota is one of many states where technology companies plan to build data centers. The energy-hungry facilities typically require local utilities to make significant upgrades to their systems. Such upgrades can be a financial boon to utilities, which typically make a guaranteed rate of return on every dollar they spend on power plants and lines. BlackRock is not alone in seeking to acquire utilities. In May, Blackstone, a private equity firm, announced an agreement to buy Albuquerque-based TXNM Energy, which operates utilities with 800,000 residential and business customers in New Mexico and Texas. Blackstone already was moving rapidly into the clean energy business in New Mexico and to develop data centers in the state. Federal and state regulators are reviewing the deal. Blackstone said it expected to complete the overall transaction by the second half of 2026, if it receives all the required approvals. 'We will continue to collaborate with customers, communities, legislators and regulators to achieve our shared goals for a reliable, resilient grid to support economic prosperity and clean energy,' Pat Collawn, chief executive of TXNM, said in a statement announcing the deal. Some consumer and progressive groups contend that investment firms shouldn't own electric utilities because they generally seek to maximize profits, often by burdening the company's finances with large amounts of debt. That approach, the critics argue, could lead to much higher electricity rates and less reliable service. 'No one in northern Minnesota wants higher utility bills solely to line the pockets of Wall Street-based private equity firms,' said Nichole Heil, senior researcher and campaign director for climate at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a research and advocacy organization that is critical of the private equity industry. Electricity rates are already rising quickly across much of the country. Some of the increases are tied to upgrades that utilities are making to harden their networks to withstand extreme weather linked to climate change. The average monthly electricity bill for a typical household that uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours of energy a month rose almost 4 percent in April from a year earlier, to $175, according to the Energy Information Administration. Rates are also rising because electricity demand has been climbing for the first time in more than a decade, in large part because of the growth of data centers, factories, electric vehicles and heat pumps. The prospect of that growth, and upgrades needed to support it, could be good for some utilities, which stand to earn higher profits. U.S. utilities typically receive a guaranteed rate of return of around 11 percent on the investments they make in their grids. Utilities also have state-sanctioned monopolies in their service areas, making them stable and lucrative investments. Those factors have made utilities attractive to investment firms. Some state officials have backed acquisitions of utilities by Wall Street firms under certain conditions. The Minnesota Department of Commerce initially opposed BlackRock's purchase of Minnesota Power, a division of Allete. But the department said in a filing on Friday that it had reached an agreement with BlackRock that it said would protect residents. The agreement forbids BlackRock to pass acquisition costs on to utility customers, and requires assurances that programs such as those for low-income consumers would remain in place. 'These commitments include a substantial array of additional public interest benefits, risk-mitigation tools and customer protections beyond those originally proposed by petitioners in this proceeding,' the state's Commerce Department said in the agreement.
