Comments on: Funding transit through a 36-percent fare increase

By: petey

petey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:20:31 +0000

i too think that this is a good suggestion, not absurd at all. not only is it morally reasonable, it sounds as though it would provide insulation from albany interference. but please, no dissing the tourists: one fare rate for everyone.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:13:13 +0000

Clearly your readers are willing to cough up some more for their TA rides, all well and good. But, I think your numbers should be adjusted to account for price elasticity of demand to make it a more effective and serious argument. Actually, as demand decreases as a function of price increases there are more seats which makes it a more valuable ride for those with the coin. Is that what you call a win/win in blogtown?

By: rhywun

rhywun — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:14:05 +0000

I was thinking of Hong Kong and Tokyo–I don’t know what the *average* fare is on these systems but the fact they’re charging higher for longer distances seems sensible to me.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:46:02 +0000

Which other systems are you thinking of? In Paris, Madrid, and Seoul, the fares are lower, and in Tokyo and Osaka they’re lower for short and medium-distance trips. Among the major transit systems of the world, only London is more expensive than New York.

By: Andrew L.

Andrew L. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:25:15 +0000

Benjamin,
It’s a testament to your ability to look at the complex issue of funding the MTA from all sides that you’re even discussing this possibility. Kudos to you. Far too many of we transit advocates react with instinctive vitriol at the news of a fare hike. Many politicians are even worse, using it as an excuse to invent some sort of progressive streak to boast to their constituents, rather than tackling the real issues.
So, time and time again we rail against (pun intended), what are far too often, fairly reasonable increases in the base fair – particularly given the massive projects that the MTA routinely undertakes to improve/extend service. Then we are left with half-baked alternatives like the recent legislative corruption of the ravitch plan. As a result, we are slowly choking the life out of the system.
I understand that the system is often used by the most underprivileged amongst us, but mobility equity should be a matter addressed at the state level through tax deductions or some sort of grant program. It should not hold the entire system captive through prolonged deferred maintenance. If the MTA was a private company, free to change its fares on a regular basis, to cover cost increases and to grow with inflation – do you think we’d be making a big stink about it every few years? No, it’d simply be a matter of life, like when the grocery store changes the price of a gallon of milk. We should give the MTA – subject to some level of reasonable oversight – this level of independence.

Cheers!
-Andrew

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:32:56 +0000

The MTA charges a flat fee citywide largely for political reasons. The same political pressure which keeps fares artificially low also prevents a more sane system of charging by distance traveled.

By: Publius

Publius — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:19:00 +0000

WMATA collects fares based on distances traveled because the system is comprised of a number of different jurisdictions (two states plus the District, and several different counties), none of which is willing to fund the system on an equal basis. New York and Chicago do not have this problem because each operates within one state. Metro-North faces a similar problem: the reason that it only recently started using newer cars on the New Haven Line was that the State of Connecticut was unwilling to fund the service at the same levels as New York.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:16:05 +0000

If the authorities made it easier to use Transitchek with unemployment benefits and SSI benefits, I think the fare could and should double. One advantage I see about total funding from the fare box is that it would reduce the unions’ stranglehold on the subways as the system wouldn’t be as dependent on Albany, with its fondness for public employee unions, for full funding.

By: Christian B

Christian B — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:46:12 +0000

I also don’t see this as either outrageous or absurd. My question though, is why don’t more subway systems institute a system like D.C’s which has people swipe on both ends of the system and charges based on distance traveled (they also don’t allow volume discount)? Ben, I am sure you know more about this than me, but what is the difference between the two systems and why does D.C. do one way and NYC (and Chicago) do it another way?

By: Scott E

Scott E — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:40:35 +0000

Working Class has a point, which has been said several times in the comments on this blog. The base fare is too low – and the discount for high-volume users is also too low. For years, the subway fares have been such that the 5-day-a-week, twice-a-day commuter would pay the same thing whether getting a 30-day unlimited or a pay-per-ride card. (By contrast, the LIRR/MNR monthly pass is equal to 2-3 weeks of peak round-trips).

We can either fund the MTA coffers through those who live and work in the city (either by fares or taxes, ultimately it hits the same people); or we can target the tourists – and there are plenty of them – by charging them more than we charge the everyday folk. Many cities, and entire countries, exploit tourism for funding. The MTA can please its political constituents, and raise money, by raising fares for occasional riders and lowering them for frequent riders.