- Sorry about the fare error, I missed the 1995 hike and used that year as the starting date with the $1.50 fare. But still, an increase from $1.00 to $2.00 from 1989 through 2007 is very small. I know that you could argue that it’s gone up 200%, but I’m speaking strictly of dollars spent.

- You said that I was comparing apples to oranges with my comparison of gasoline and mass transit prices, but then you made the argument that gasoline should be taxed (more then it already is) to fund mass transit. Unless that tax is levied strictly in the area served by the mass transit system, it would be completely unfair. Other areas would correctly argue that they need that hypothetical extra gasoline tax money for their infrastructure construction and repair, which is currently under funded. Besides, gas is already taxed quite a bit. Increased gas prices directly increases consumer prices, which would also hurt the working poor. I don’t think a gas tax is the answer.

- An income tax is a different story. I would support a small income tax increase to support the MTA. But again, only if it were strictly levied against those areas served by the transit system. I’d even go so far as to agree that it should be a graduated tax levied heaviest against the wealthy. Combine that with a small fare increase and we might actually have an economically healthy mass transit system that could efficiently service everyone.

- Lastly, I still don’t agree that 34 cents a day is too much for the working poor, but we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks for keeping this discussion civil; I’m really enjoying it!

The last hike to $2.00 was in 2003; in 1995 we had a hike from 1.25 to 1.50 . . . and in 1989, the fare was only 1.00.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....nsit_fares

Raising the fare $10 isn’t going to kill me, but I’m a lawyer. What about the dishwashers, the cleaning people, the store clerks, and everybody else that comprise the working poor?

The question isn’t whether we need to fund, it’s how. Higher gas taxes is one way. Using income taxes is another. We have had a progressive tax system in this country (though that’s been substantially chipped down under Reagan and Bush, and the Patakis and Giulianis of the world). They cut taxes disproportionately for the rich, and raise fees equally for everybody . . . thus shifting the burden down the scale to those who can least afford it.

That’s bad policy in my book, and I will fight against it tooth and nail.

Raising the unlimited metrocard price ten dollars a month (the equivalent of 33 1/3 cents a day) is not a burden on any little guy, regardless of the income. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but gasoline prices have skyrocketed recently*. If the subways weren’t an option, we’d be looking at far more then a 13.15% increase in travel expenditures. As it stands right now, the unlimited metrocard is a tremendous bargain. If funds need to be raised to pay for capital improvements, the fares should be raised. The “little guy” is more then capable of skipping one beer a week ($2.33) to help pay for the needed improvements.

*(Also of note, back in 1997 gas prices averaged $1.15 per gallon. Ten years later a gallon costs $3.30. Have subway fares doubled in the past ten years? No. The single ride fare has risen from $1.50 in 1995 to $2.00 through today. We’re way overdue for a fare increase.)

People just need to understand the pools of money these things come from. Even if all capital projects were cancelled and the existing debt load miraculously paid off, farebox revenue would be less than what it costs to operate the subway. In fact, farebox revenue isn’t even enough to cover labor costs alone.

Obviously, in an abstract sense, if fares go up, it narrows the operating gap, and therefore the government subsidies (already too low) are available for other purposes. But the projects mentioned in the post don’t even get the subway up to a state of good repair; there remain hundreds of stations that haven’t been renovated. There’s no foreseeable scenario, with or without increased subsidies, where this happens anytime before about 2025.

Bloomberg has played the press masterfully, and has made some terrific changes over the past year. But he could have done much, much better, and that is the yardstick he should be measured by.

Imagine if he had the courage to say, New York’s transit infrastructure has reached a crisis point, and this surplus must be invested for the future of our city. Imagine he had the courage to say, our transit system is not ADA compliant, and we can use this money to end that shameful legacy.

Instead, once again, when money gets tight, transit improvements will again be delayed or cut.

Raising fares unfairly drops the burden on the little guy, it should be the last resort, and the fact that we’re talking about it results from an abject failure of leadership in both City Hall and Albany. This is largely the legacy of Pataki and Giuliani, but Bloomberg also shoulders a share of the blame.