Comments on: Details emerging about upcoming fare hike

By: qctbydzrj cbxf

qctbydzrj cbxf — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:13:13 +0000

oqyrfdvhn atgd vrqfjow jzeatlsd rwiub xqgvijpa hyqwpkngt

By: from Seabrook Island

from Seabrook Island — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:42:53 +0000

This is one of the best posts I’ve ever seen on this subject. It should be required for all interested parties to read. Why you ask? So they understand the facts about the five-cent fare. That being said, I believe we all understand that this is not a surprise about the hike among fare.

By: Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways » Blog Archive » MTA Board approves fare hike

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:48:38 +0000

[...] knows, the fare hike debate has been raging for much of the last two months. The MTA wanted a higher increase and a base-fare hike as well, but Gov. Sitzer, ever mindful of those tourists in New York, decided he would rather screw [...]

By: MTA urged to delay fare hike until mid-2008 « Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:38:01 +0000

[...] heard a litany of calls from politicians urging the MTA to hold off, or outright reject, the upcoming fare hike. The folks who hold the purse strings – the New York State Comptroller and the New York City [...]

By: NYC Comptroller: With help from state, MTA could avoid fare hike « Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:42:30 +0000

[...] weeks after the MTA announced a 2008 fare hike, the New York City Comptroller has issued a report concluding that the MTA could avoid a fare hike [...]

By: Victoria Jeter

Victoria Jeter — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:29:38 +0000

I feel like we JUST had a fare hike…

By: adamess

adamess — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0000

I thought that the 5 cent fare was specified in the dual contracts, preventing the IRT and BMT from raising it without a renegotiation…

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:58:12 +0000

We could write books on the five-cent fare and its effects on 20th Century New York. But now we have a complete picture.

I would like to respond to this point: “Also, the fare question is tricky on because, especially for a precarious transit system, a rise in fares always means a decrease in ridership which leads to the death spiral of increasing fares and lower ridership.”

I don’t think that’s true. Look at what happened when the fares went up from $1.50 to $2.00. We’ve seen an historic increase in subway riders. Ridership is at a 54-year high. I don’t think a modest 6.5 percent increase would kill ridership.

By: danberkman

danberkman — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:55:17 +0000

I think you are missing a crucial part of the history of the subway fare puzzle. The fare hikes that started when it became clear the the five cent fare was simply not sufficient could have been slowed and prevented by using the surplus monies that the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority had at the time. But Robert Moses, head of that Authority knew that to give the money to the city was to reduce his power and the nearly unlimited power of his public authority and so he sabotaged all such efforts to help the city pay for its ailing transit infrastructure with the hundreds of millions of dollars that he was reaping from his toll bridges and tunnels. The city, always broke, could have used those revenues to modernize the subway and bus systems fifty years ago but instead we all know what happened.

Also, the fare question is tricky on because, especially for a precarious transit system, a rise in fares always means a decrease in ridership which leads to the death spiral of increasing fares and lower ridership.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:54:46 +0000

Peter, I just saw that. Thanks for the tip. I’m going to write up some thoughts on that later. It is an intriguing idea to say the least.