Comments on: Walder thinking about off-peak discounts

By: Second Avenue Resident

Second Avenue Resident — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:40:14 +0000

Amid talk of subway fares and crowded riders, I just received notice that blasting will begin the week of November 2nd, 4 to 5 times a day, from 7am to 10pm.

For residents of Second Avenue, this is yet another subtraction from the quality of our lives — one which might not even be safe. When pedestrians wait to cross Second Avenue, it’s obvious the pavement vibrates from heavy vehicles. Occasionally, slight vibrations can be felt in apartments as well. What will happen when the blasting starts?

And if we’re safe, how about the noise? It’s stressful and bad for our health, to say nothing of how it affects nonhuman residents even more. Thankfully, construction that went on until after 11pm (for two years) is lately being stopped by 7pm, but blasting from 7am to 10pm is like a war zone.

Naively, I was hoping residents could be informed within an hour, or perhaps two hours, of when the blast will occur. That would give us the chance to leave the area if we wanted to. But with 4-5 blasts over 15 hours, that’s not possible unless we have somewhere else to stay.

If supporters of the Second Avenue Subway traded places with the residents here, I think you would change your tune.

One thing is clear — Second Avenue residents are collateral damage. Subway construction has destroyed this area,

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:49:13 +0000

Why is it unfair penalization? Charging people from Riverdale to get to work in Midtown more than charging people from Harlem sounds perfectly fair to me.

Time-based pricing is a new innovation, untried in other subway systems. This means more power to corrupt contractors promising new technology, more cost overruns, and less preexisting knowledge of what the consequences would be. For example, would it cause people to unnecessarily transfer to crowded express trains instead of stay on less crowded locals?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:38:02 +0000

The poorest residents of NYC live in Harlem (which would benefit), the South Bronx (which would stay the same), and Eastern Brooklyn (which would benefit in Bed-Stuy and lose out in East NY). The areas furthest away from the CBD are middle-class or upper middle-class: Jamaica, Bay Ridge, Riverdale, Co-op City.

By: JAR

JAR — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:41:13 +0000

I think we can safely say that distance-based fares won’t be happening: charging outer borough residents more is political suicide, and now that Metrocard killed two-fare zones, we won’t go back. Paying upon exit would be a big cultural shift, in addition to requiring layout changes at every station. Plus, there’s something unifying and almost endearing about a system that lets you get anywhere within its borders for the same price.
I hope that, whatever changes get made, the fare system stays as simple as possible. Something you can describe to a visitor or infrequent user in either one or two sentences. We transit nuts will be able to get it no matter what, but for infrequent users of any business or building or anything, the simpler the better.

By: Mike HC

Mike HC — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:59:49 +0000

Except that it is a public transportation system that should benefit the people who need to use it the most.

By: James D

James D — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:49:54 +0000

This is a really great idea. There are costs to be met of providing rush hour service (including running every single Z train and extra runs on other lines), and it’s not fair for off-peak riders to pay for those who are costing the system the most money.

By: Mike Nitabach

Mike Nitabach — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:41:36 +0000

I assume the taxi lobby is going to be vehemently against this proposal.

By: Duke87

Duke87 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:18:03 +0000

Fare zones make sense for travel to and from a city (note that Metro-North has them, for instance). For within a city, however, it does not.

Charging people in The Bronx more to get to work in Midtown than people who live on the Upper West Side makes no sense since it is an unfair penalization. Charging people who live in Dutchess County more than people who live in the city, however, is a perfectly fair penalization. You pay a premium for living in the suburbs, and there aren’t too many poor working class people in Wassaic who suffer from that.

As for time-based pricing… I dunno. It could work, but then again, it’s also an added complication, significantly so for the unlimited ride cards. Besides, there’s really nothing wrong with the current flat fare, and if it ain’t broke…

By: Andrew Kalloch

Andrew Kalloch — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:14:08 +0000

The reduced fare program is a bureaucratic nightmare for MTA as it now stands. To provide vouchers for literally millions of people (the Times reported today that 1.6 million NYC residents are on Food Stamps) would likely eat a majority of the gross receipts gained from distance-based pricing.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:19:47 +0000

A few comments have mentioned exit swipes and others have explained why this is an infrastructure challenge. Don’t forget though that the MTA is invested $220 million to implement some sort of swipeless fare system. If they are serious about variable pricing, they can implement exit taps while installing the new fare payment system without incurring the massive expense of retrofitting the current MetroCard infrastructure.