Comments on: Decade Retrospective: Subway fare increases

By: Niccolo Machivelli

Niccolo Machivelli — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:08:43 +0000

Thanks for looking that up Ben, I really wasn’t trying to make the point that no matter how you construct the graph fares on a per ride basis are somewhere near a historic low in real money. Even if you buy that it doesn’t mean that fares are fair or unfair. I think if you believe that income differences are much higher among our citizens than they have historically been then the the fairness of fare increases is problematic. The MTA may have less of a welfare character than it did historically as more upper class and middle class people have moved with gentrification to neighborhoods they previously shunned. Wealthier people could conceivably prefer higher fares to the extent it will secure a seat for them. Poor people, or the increasingly poor outcasts from the middle class, probably prefer a cheaper ride even if they have to stand.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:44:23 +0000

On one of the “Fares aren’t that high” posts, I wrote a comment about the city’s recent fare history. The summary is that if you plot the real fare from 1994 to today, the graph will look like a V, with the cusp at the 2003 fare hike.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:19:57 +0000

Windows-only. My tax dollars at work….

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:36:55 +0000

Of course the fares have risen faster than inflation – fares were absurdly low in 2000. Remember, the nominal fare hadn’t gone up since 1995, and in the interim, unlimited cards, free bus-subway transfers, and a 10% bonus were introduced (so the effective fare had gone way down).

I think it would be more interesting to compare today’s fares with 1995 fares. People in two-fare zones paid $3.00 (in 1995 dollars) back then but only pay $1.96 (in 2009 dollars) now – or less, if they ride frequently enough to make use of unlimited cards.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:48:20 +0000

No, the numbers are not artificially low; they follow conventions recommended by statistical organizations worldwide. See BLS explanation here. And nowadays the numbers aren't even 3% - in this recession, inflation has been about 1.5%.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:41:38 +0000

I don't have decade-long per-swipe numbers at my fingertips, but I have the Sept. 2008/Sept. 2009 comparisons. In 2008, the per-swipe average was $1.41, and in 2009, the per-swipe average was $1.55. I can see what I can find.

By: Niccolo Machivelli

Niccolo Machivelli — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:38:57 +0000

I’m more interested in average cost of a swipe to the passenger. As I remember $1.299 as of last spring, curious as to what it is now and has been historically. That more accurately tracks the cost of a ride and can provide a yardstick against historical costs against inflation as well as comparative values to the two-fare zone era.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:15:26 +0000

And the government is pretending that there is zero inflation!
For that reason there will be no increase in Social Security payments in the new year.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:12:59 +0000

Oh, I know it’s not your fault.
I was just pointing it out.

By: SEAN

SEAN — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:54:50 +0000

I’de be careful when contrasting fare increases against the true rate of inflation. The numbers quoted in the mainstreem news are artificially low. True inflation today is running about 6 to 7% & not 3% or so. You can read sites like mybudget360.com or shadowstats.com for mor information.