For the last three months, the MTA has firmly insisted that they would not raise fares for 2010. When faced with an initial deficit of under $400 million, Board members said the authority would become a leaner one with more streamlined service options and fewer costly and underutilized runs. When the deficit ballooned to $751 million, they began to dance around the issue, but CEO and Chairman Jay Walder repeatedly said he preferred to stick with the scheduled 2011 fare hike. Well, the best laid plans…
Today, the Post reports that the MTA is considering a fare hike in 2010, not least of all because most people at last week’s hearings expressed a strong preference for a hike over a service cut. I’ve touched on this topic in a few posts since December, and I too prefer a hike over the cuts. Tom Namako has more:
Increasing the cost of a ride on subways, buses and commuter rails in 2010 is just one option out of many that officials have put on the table to overcome the staggering deficit, management sources said.
“I think there is a set of options. And the fare is one of those as we try to get to the bottom line,” a board member said.
“In view of the reaction we got to the service reductions we have out there, I think that asking most board members if they’d rather see more service cuts or a fare increase, I think, at the moment, many would pick a fare increase.”
In a statement to the Post, the MTA denied exploring the hikes. “Our position has not changed. It remains our intention to raise the fare in 2011 as agreed upon last year,” spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.
Yet, the truth remains that to cut $751 million worth of services would cripple the MTA and the New York City economy. Without massive layoffs and an agency-wide restructuring, it is nearly impossible to cut that much while meeting ridership demands.
Meanwhile, Bill Henderson of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Council to the MTA raised some interesting points about the fare hike. He first noted that a hike this year could be viewed as an acceleration of the 2011 hike, but it is my understanding that the MTA’s fare hike in 2011 is a foregone conclusion whether they raise fares this year or not. Henderson noted, however, that if the MTA were to announce a fare hike within the next few weeks, it would go into effect right around Election Day. Hopefully, straphangers would be angry enough at the way Albany robs from the MTA to vote the anti-transit representatives out of office.
And so we are where I expected us to be. The MTA is broke, and it needs to offer transit service to the millions of New Yorkers who rely on it a day. It doesn’t enjoy any sort of political support in Albany and has become a scapegoat for the politicians’ inabilities to defend their constituent interests. Soon, we’ll be paying more for, hopefully, the same amount of service. Cutting service and raising fare would lead to a dark day for New Yorkers indeed.
24 comments
In politics, they call this a “trial balloon.” If it goes over reasonably well, they’ll adopt it. If it goes over poorly, the MTA can always say that it was never their intent to raise fares in 2010.
I agree that fares should go up, in lieu of service cuts.
I am in favor of a fare increase. But I am only in favor of the increase cancelling out the service cuts if the base fare raises to at least $3 and the metrocard discounts are eliminated. The projected service cuts don’t really save much money.
Discounted fares are the carrot to increase riders. Remove the carrot, and…
I’ve got no problem with the discounted fares, but right now, the average per ride cost is $1.41. The base fare being $2.25 is a joke because less than 10 percent of riders pay that. In reality, the MTA needs to hike up the costs of the unlimited ride cards, but they definitely shouldn’t just do away with them entirely. We still want to encourage transit use in the city.
I want the average per ride fare to be $3 and no less. Lets try and put an end to the MTA begging for money every single year.
Want to end year-to-year “begging”? Sorry. Can’t be done. It would require the legislature to make long-term irreversible (or tough-to-reverse) decisions, and legislatures don’t do that.
An increase that more than doubles the average fare is both unwise and not even remotely possible. I would endorse a $3 base fare, with discounts remaining in place or even expanding them. Even that is probably not happening.
In other words, you want New York to have the second most expensive subway in the world, ahead of profitable systems like Tokyo’s, Singapore’s, Hong Kong’s, and Seoul’s. Why – just so that you get your multi-operator trains?
What do you mean by “multi operator”? The subway’s trains ALL have just ONE operator the same as the MNR and LIRR. The subways have 1 conductor which is way less than the 3-6 conductors on the commuter trains. The 1 operator on the subway’s is 1-2 less than on any freight train.
The subways have 1 operator and 1 conductor, which is 1 more than in virtually every other subway system in the world, and 2 more than in some.
One big difference — and I’m sure there are others — is that those other cities do not have to contend with a system that was starved for investment and maintenance for decades.
Most of the NYC subway lines cannot operate safely without a conductor. The union opposes this even on the lines where it is possible, but even if that problem were solved, it would not solve the current financial crisis, which runs much deeper than that.
Are you saying this out of familiarity with all other major subway systems? Or are you just assuming that if the New York railfan community hasn’t heard of the deferred maintenance in Berlin or Paris or London, then it didn’t happen?
The same goes for the conductor issue. Look at what’s done in subway systems of comparable age before you pronounce New York globally unique. Paris has a few curvy platforms, for instance.
If you seriously believe that it is possible to run the New York City subway at a profit, then clearly you have chosen the wrong profession, and should be marketing your services to the MTA.
But it’s funny that over a period of roughly eight decades, not one person charged with running NYC transit has reached your conclusion.
Who said anything about profits? No Western transit system is profitable. The subjects at hand are OPTO and deferred maintenance. All of those maintenance-deferred, politics-dependent, union-choked systems run all subway trains OPTO. Japan even runs mainline trains OPTO, and I believe that so do Germany and Switzerland.
Do you have some sources for Japan running mainline trains OTPO? I’ve seen such a thing only on some very small trains in the countryside.
Within the greater Tokyo area (where I live), all trains have both a driver and a conductor. All stations have at least one station attendant on duty at all times. (Most have several.) In addition many stations have a platform attendant on duty at all times, and most stations have one during busier hours (busier stations will have two to four per platform).
I was back in NYC a couple of months ago, and the stations seemed shockingly deserted of staff by comparison.
Of course, do keep in mind that, looking at subways alone, the Tokyo subway systems move more passengers daily than the NYC subway does, but on less than two thirds the number of stations and lines, as well as charging more for long trips (and even short ones in some cases).
I am OK with a reasonable fare hike, and the volume discounts should be kept. But some cuts should still be made. I still don’t understand the purpose of operating empty buses, or buses that serve 3 people. Sorry, that’s not mass transit.
What kind of income would tolling all those free East River bridges produce, and is there a way the proceeds can make their way to the MTA? I understand that I’m underpaying for transit, but a $110 monthly unlimited is approaching scary territory, considering that it will only go up from there.
Tolling the bridges didn’t have the votes in the State Senate, and it still doesn’t. I’m sure you can find the financial impact, because the Ravitch proposal suggested exactly that, but the Senators who blocked it before haven’t changed their minds.
Indeed, the Ravitch proposal figured $600-800M in income. Assuming that they pulled that number out of their nose, as they usually do, I’ll cut it in half as a rule of thumb. $300M extra dollars for the MTA still sounds enticing. Unfortunately, those who voted against it cited the “opaque” operations of the MTA as their reasoning.
Ben, do you mean that you think they will raise it by 25 cents this year, and ANOTHER 25 cents next year?
I”m sure that there will be service cuts no matter what. Unlimited metrocards are popular for mass transit systems all over the world. And frankly, any state legislature that gives too much money to the MTA will be committing political suicide. Layoff the token booth clerks and other staff remembers, get reduce redundant bus service in Manhattan, and if that isn’t enough, THEN the MTA can talk about getting extra money. That is, if the state can afford it.
All over the country, the public has shown that they do not like tax increases, to the point where states are seriously cutting services that they can’t pay for.
The only way the state could give the MTA all the money some transit buffs want is massive deficit spending, but that would ultimately lead to collapse.
Don’t get me wrong, I love trains, and yes, I want the government to give the MTA more money to expand the system. However, I’m not convinced the MTA is an efficient spender of taxpayer dollars, and just blindly giving into them everytime they claim they need more money would just lead to wasteful spending. If the MTA can easily get money from the state, there’s no need for them to try to force contractors to accept less costly deals. Because they mostly got want they want, according to the CEO and Chairman they have 94 different telephone numbers you can call to contact various departments, instead of one centralized number (He called the MTA Verizon’s best friend). This waste needs to be ended first.
And by the way, those people who cried against service cuts will cry if the fairs go up. THe problem is the public can be stupid and expects something for nothing. They want lots of government service, but don’t want to pay for it.
All over the country, the public has shown that they do not like tax increases, to the point where states are seriously cutting services that they can’t pay for.
The only way the state could give the MTA all the money some transit buffs want is massive deficit spending, but that would ultimately lead to collapse.
I take great exception to this charge. The way the state could give the MTA the money it needs is by enacting congestion pricing or East River Bridge tolls. Not only would the MTA get funded, but the state would be better capturing the negative externalities of driving as well. It’s basically inevitable.
I agree in theory that car travel is underpriced… but at this point I see three possible scenarios:
1. Do nothing–budget gimmickry will push the problem beyond the next election cycle
2. Some combination of fare hikes and service cuts which would actually balance the MTA budget according to the current constraints under which it operates, which by many could be seen as, or lead to, a “collapse”
3. Congestion pricing/bridge tolls
Of the three, I think #1 is by far the most likely to happen. The other two scenarios have powerful foes at every level of government and on both sides of the aisle.
I agree with Nesta. Charge whatever fare it takes to make the MTA independent of every one of our dysfunctional layers of government. Once that independence is established, any subsequent outside funding can be applied to reducing fares after the fact. In other words, put the onus and responsibility for politically popular below-cost fares where it belongs.
[…] first time this year we’ve heard talk of a premature fare hike. In March, talk of an increase emerged in the press, but the MTA officially denied considering raising its rates. Still, when a one percent increase in […]