Sometime in the eventual future, the MTA will do away with MetroCards and move toward a tap-and-go fare payment system. When the familiar pieces of plastic with their particularly sensitive magnetic stripes go the way of the dodo, the authority will have a chance to re-imagine how we pay for our subway rides. Do we need a pay-per-ride option? How should unlimited fare cards work in this brave new word of contactless payment?
A few months ago, SAS reader Corey emailed me a question and a proposal concerning the fare structure. He asked about eliminating the pay-per-ride fare entirely and all forms of transfer. He proposed a three-tiered fare structure: Riders could pay either $5 for one day of unlimited use, $25 for seven days of unlimited use or $100 for four weeks of unlimited use. “The rationale here,” he wrote to me, “is that if you use transit to get somewhere, you’re highly likely to use it to get back.”
As long as the tap-and-go system uses the standard block-and-reconcile billing method that many e-commerce sites use, he believes it can be easy to program a flexible system that charges per use. Under this scheme, on the fifth day of use in a seven-day period, the charge would become a weekly unlimited one good for seven days from the first use, and the same would apply after the fourth weekly charge. Effectively, the user would buy discounted cards retroactively.
Corey’s reasoning, from a billing perspective is one of simplicity. This system, he writes, “eliminates complicated transfer wrangling and helps bridge the gap between the old MetroCard system and the new tap-and-go.” In essence, it’s a transition approach to billing that allows users flexibility. They should also be able to opt-in for bulk purchases from the start, but if they don’t choose to do so, they won’t get overcharged on the back end.
Corey ends his email with a question: “Can you see any flaws in this plan?” And that’s where I’m picking up his thread. I’ll leave the question open to debate, but first some thoughts.
I’m uncomfortable with doing away with pay-per-ride options entirely because it tends to discourage transit use. While many people do intend to make the return trip, that’s not always the case. Sometimes, the return trip is via automobile. Sometimes, in the case of trips to travel hubs, the return ride isn’t until after a vacation or business trip.
With an automatic payment of $5 from the get-go, users are encouraged to use as much transit as possible, but sometimes, they just don’t have a choice. The $5 rate seems high enough as an initial starting point to discourage those who need to make a quick trip infrequently even as it encourages others to make as many trips as possible frequently.
Beyond that limiting factor, though, this plan is certainly one that could be put in place fairly easily, and it shouldn’t increase most people’s transportation costs. The daily card would raise the price of a back-and-forth trip to $2.50 per entry, but the weekly option is cheaper than the current $29 card available for sale. Charging $100 for four weeks is a slight increase over the current $104 30-day card, but when fares go up in 2013, we’ll likely reach that point anyway.
When the MTA introduces a tap-and-go system, they should be able to tout an equally impressive reduction of fare collection costs. Off-the-cuff calculations reveal that fare-collection savings off as little as three cents per fare dollar will save the MTA around $50 million a year. Considering the authority’s precarious financial state, they won’t — and shouldn’t — pass those savings onto customers, but a more streamlined fare system has its benefits.
To create a better system, we must build one that encourages mass transit without overcharging for it or overburdening those who can’t pay as much but rely on the system for vital transportation needs. Corey’s proposal is certainly easier to understand than today’s menu of discounts and fare options. But is it the best we can do?
42 comments
I often bike one way and take the subway home if it’s late and I’m far away. Or, even if I take the subway both ways, what if I stay out past midnight? Or I take the subway to the airport or Penn Station on my way out of town. Paying $5 for a one-way ride in any of these circumstances would kind of suck.
I’m not familiar with block-and-reconcile? I tried to google it but instead this post is already in the first page of google results for the term…
“Effectively, the user would buy discounted cards retroactively.”
This is exactly how Oystercard works in London.
Pay per ride is crucial for the large numbers of New Yorkers who carpool, taxi, walk or bike to work, and for the many non-commute trips people take. Getting rid of pay reduces travel flexibility and essentially discourages walking and biking, why would you want to do that? Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not an argument. The MTA’s fare computers don’t care if there are one or a thousand fare options, and riders like more options, not fewer. What riders are complaining about having pay-per-ride as an option? So what is the point here?
I kind of like the idea as an economic boon to the city. It might encourage daily commuters who generally just go to and from their workplace to stay and shop or dine in other city neighborhoods. I know that when I worked in Manhattan (downtown) and had the choice of going to a store on 14th St or in the suburbs, I would elect for the suburb because it didn’t involve another subway fare. Under this plan, I’d make the trip during my lunch hour.
On the other hand, defining a “day” would be difficult. It couldn’t be midnight-to-midnight, there are too many late-shift workers and night owls. If it were 24-hours from first swipe, people would beat the system by, for instance, swiping in at 7am and 5pm on Monday, then 6:55am and 5:05pm Tuesday (before going back to 7/5 on Wed). It creates an “every-other-day-free” scenario.
This plan also fails to take into account the poorest NYers who literally have to scrounge for their next fare, or who have enough total living $ just for a few days. Sticking them with a $5 daily charge could put them over the top. Plus, they likely do not have all this ‘fancy’ computer/debit/credit card access in the first place and using the free computers and access at a public library just doesn’t make sense. Then there are the veterans who are given ‘car fare’ to use the old term, just enough to get on a bus from the hospital.
Thank you Al for mentioning that. That’s exactly my thought too.
I agree that the $5 a day fee is high for those who only need to use the subway once. But couldn’t the retroactive part of the plan suggested be extended to cover one day? Make the initial fee higher that $2.50 but then any subsequent trip would not cost more that $5 for the day.
I wouldn’t get rid of the pay-per ride scheme yet. There are plenty of people who just make weekday commutes on the subway, and they have no need to use the subway on weekends. My parents only commute during the week (1 round trip each day), and under this scheme they’d be charged for the weekly card when they have no need for it. At the moment I don’t have a day to day need for transit, and for people like that, the pay-per ride optio (if you can buy the biggest card) is the best choice. I wouldn’t eliminate it yet.
As for the rolling unlimited rides program, I’d suggest some sort of Weekday or 5-Day Unlimited that kicks in first before it jumps to the 7 day card, or the choice between the two before you’re card access automatically jumps to the 7 day card. Using the $25 for 7 days, at the 4th day, the system asks you (via Text, e-mail, phone or card machine) whether you need access for only one more day or for 3 more days. The one more day option would cost nothing extra (so 5 day access costs $20, though in this scenario it makes round trip commutes $2 again), and the 3 day options costs $5 to make the $25 7-day card. I’m not suggesting these fare levels (they’ll probably be too low when the system gets enacted), but you get the picture.
This is literally the worst possible way to structure fares. The reason is that it on the one hand gets rid of the flexibility of pay-per-ride fares, and on the other hand structures the unlimited discounts in such a way that eliminates their advantages of low transaction costs and payment in advance.
There are some subways in the world without unlimited fares, but there isn’t a single one I know of without pay-per-ride fares. For maximum flexibility and minimum transaction costs, you’d want both, you’d want both to be easy to use, and you’d want the unlimited monthly discount to be large. So far New York does the first two well but not the last one.
From the perspective that the MTA also needs to raise revenue, this may not be a great idea–the MTA makes money when people buy unlimited passes but end up not breaking even on them, or use pay-per-ride passes when an unlimited would have been better. I’m not saying the MTA should be trying to screw riders over, but automatic unlimited passes (like what they have in London) maybe make things too easy for the rider, and too hard for the transit operator to luck out and make a bit of extra money.
$5 is less than the now-defunct one-day fun pass cost. I think $5 is simultaneously too high for a single ride and too low for a full day of rides.
I go through a $20 metrocard about every 6 weeks. I don’t see why you need to soak me for not putting a burden on the system… isn’t it problematic that people use the peak routes too much, making it impossible to even board the 6 train?
I would say it makes more sense to go to 1-way passes only, and charge based on how busy the ride is likely to be (either through rush-hour or trip-specific fares). Fares are definitely underpriced for peak-time trips on the Lexingtnon line, and probably overpriced on other routes at other times. Why not just adjust prices appropriately? Why does every trip need to cost the same when the burden every trip puts on the system is different? I think of the DC pricing system as being ideal (as long as the prices are well-maintained).
This would also encourage people to move neighborhoods on low-fare lines, which would probably have a revitalizing effect on a lot of them.
In addition to the usual unlimited cards, German-speaking cities often offer discounted cards valid only after 9 or 10 am.
Oh I forgot, the DC system is based mostly on distance, but I would focus on crowdedness rather than distance.
Peak fare rates would have to be across the board because of the 100-plus year history of a flat fare on NYC mass transit (the double fare in the Rockaways from the 1950s to the 1970s being the lone exception). Woe to the politician who suggests a distance-base fare, especially since any such fare would be biased in favor of Manhattanites, who by and large make shorter commutes than riders in the other other boroughs.
At the same time, the MTA would be 110 percent assured of a lawsuit if they eliminate the single-pay fare option, and go to a smart-card based fare tallying system. While that might work for some of the new toll highways around the country — where only certain high-volume exits are staffed 24/7 and others only can be used by people with E-Z Pass equivalents, under penalty of fine.
If the MTA went to a system where only high-volume stations were staffed all the time and others required smart card use of HEETs during off-hours, they would face years of legal challenges on at the very least ADA access and overall station security grounds, and would probably lose in the end. So my guess is, like the token, the Metrocard is destined to linger for a while before it completely vanishes.
No city that has distance based fares has different fares within the city limits. Remember that DC’s Metro and SF’s BART is the unholy marriage of two combined systems: regional rail and a subway. And almost all their capacity problems as well as completely asinine building and expansion programs (which has focused on endlessly long extensions to sprawling hinterlands instead of building capacity in the core) are because of this duel nature that has never been adequately reconciled. (And likely can’t be… DC has grown weary of dealing with a system that’s focused on suburban expansion and is building it’s own parallel system of light rail and better buses.) SF adds an additional wrinkle to this problem by also having two systems which allows monthly Muni pass holders to ride for free on BART. Even the regional rail in most cities I’ve seen — SF, Chicago — have one fare for within the city limits.
Lots of cities charge different rates within the city. Just thinking of the cities I’ve been to, Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Seattle all have distance-based fares.
Within the boundaries of DC Metro fares vary depending on distance.
A distance-based fare could (and, logically, would) charge higher fares for people traveling solely within the Manhattan CBD than for those traveling solely within one of the outer boroughs.
I’m not sure what legal challenges you have in mind. PATH stations aren’t staffed. On what legal basis do you claim that subway stations need to be staffed?
Bad idea. I walk everywhere I can and use the subway only when my destination is farther than I am able to walk. Sometimes this is once a month, sometimes it’s a handful of times. If I didn’t have the option of pay-per-ride and was forced to pay for an unlimited, I’d probably stop walking in order to feel like I got my money’s worth out of the card. I don’t want to stop walking; it’s good exercise. A lot of people would probably think like me about getting their money’s worth and take the subways and buses all the time, which would lead to overcrowding. The subways and buses are already overcrowded without the people who have been avoiding using them.
There’s no reason not to start the structure one tier lower, with a single ride.
– Day 1 – Trip 1 – Cost of a Single Ride Charged
– Day 1 – Trip 2 – Second ride would exceed threshold, day rate charged
The next few days would work exactly the same way, until you cross the weekly threshold, and then the weekly rate is applied instead and the former charges are wiped out. It would work the same way on a monthly basis.
This eliminates the problems of removing the single ride option. However the problem to all these schemes is the they would eliminate a lot of the MTA’s fare chicanery: underutilized pre-purchased unlimited cards and money left (trapped) on per-ride cards.
With the latest fare and the discounts, I can never seem to get all of the value off of my pay per ride Metrocard. Of course, the good thing is that I use the same card forever in an attempt to do so, so it’s less wasteful, but plenty of people don’t and the MTA gets to keep their money.
The upside is that, even with the above, the existence of unlimited cards actually reduces the average effective far by quite a bit. Maybe there would be some wiggle room for repricing that would shrink that gap in exchange for the MTA giving up its pricing game for transparent post-facto pricing. That’s how Zipcar works!
Oyster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_card
Why not tie in to the EZ-Pass standard? (Obviously with a different card/transponder but the same back-end) We use the same EZ-Pass from NJ to Boston (my typical trips to visit scattered family). A transit standard that would work on commuter rail, light rail, NYCT, PATH, the T, Newark City subway would be great.
Of course it doesn’t have to happen all at once. But it would be great for the riding public if an early goal was versatility across systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZPASS
This is key. There are too many separate systems and separate fares around this area. They really need to be tied into if not a single ticket, at least a single payment factor.
It’s called your credit card.
Why penalize the person who walks one way and takes the subway back?
It all comes down to how much revenue would be generated by such a system. While additional revenue would be generated by customers no longer receiving discounts, revenue would also be lost from riders who use the system for more than two trips a day who do not currently buy unlimited ride cards, either because they cannot afford the initial cash outlay or are unsure of how many trips they will make that week.
Instead, I propose the following: that the MTA totally eliminate one-way trips requiring two-fares by guaranteeing that all trips be made for a single fare with no limit on the number of bus transfers as long as the last transfer is made within two hours of initial boarding. There currently is no limit on the number of subway transfers, so why is only one bus transfer allowed?
The answer is to prevent round trips from being made with a single fare. No analysis, however, ever has been undertaken to estimate how much revenue would actually be lost if more than one bus transfer were allowed. The MTA’s fear that such a policy change would result in massive revenue loss is unfounded. Comparably few people make round trips, spending so little time at their destination, to make a round trip possible within approximately two hours. In fact with a little ingenuity and some walking, round trips can now be made for a single fare by traveling one way by train and using a parallel bus line to return or vice-versa.
If short round trips were legally available for a single fare, the additional number of trips generated would far outweigh the amount of lost revenue. Just look at the dramatic effect bus /subway transfers and universal bus transfers had on ridership. A forty-year trend in declining bus ridership was reversed and bus ridership increased something like 30%. Yet, the MTA fought extending free bus transfers for over 40 years, fearing massive revenue loss and they were wrong because of ridership increases. (After 1962, Manhattan and the Bronx had virtually no free bus transfers, and in Brooklyn, they were available at approximately 50% of bus intersection points.)
If revenue is lost, the time limit to make a transfer could be reduced from two hours to 90 minutes, with exceptions made during overnight hours when most bus routes operate at hourly intervals, and during times of severe delays or route curtailments like we had during the recent blizzard. (A variation on this plan could prohibit round trips using the same bus route for a single fare.)
This plan would in effect assure that all trips within a single borough and many more could all be made for a single fare, but some very long trips, for example from the northern Bronx to Southeast Queens or Southeast Brooklyn that currently require one fare may now require two. It would be still be fairer for very long trips to require a second fare, rather than short ones, only because three buses are required.
Recent bus service cutbacks, require more trips involving more than two buses, or a bus to a train to a bus, both of which require a second fare. For example, why should someone traveling from Knapp Street who now has to take the B44 to the B36 to the B4, during hours the B4 does not operate to Sheepshead Bay have to pay a second fare, just because the MTA decided to shorten the route mid-days and weekends? They are already being inconvenienced by having to take three buses instead of one. Paying an extra fare for that privilege only adds insult to injury.
I would prefer to just have unlimited transfers between all local buses and subways, even under the current 2 hour limit.
The thing is that long trips (such as northern Bronx-southeast Queens) are often accomplished by automobile. So the fare structure shouldn’t penalize those types of trips.
Even if some people are still able to use one fare to make a round trip, I think that there are a certain number of trips in which the customer is only making that trip via public transit (or via a more expensive mode of public transit) because of the free transfer in the opposite direction.
By the way, round trips are already prohibited using the same bus line, but on certain corridors (Q30/Q31, S44/S59, B41/Q35, etc), you can take one bus route there and another route back (or, as discussed before, many routes run a few blocks from the subway, so the subway can be used to make the round-trip for one fare)
For example, on the express bus, since the transfer limit was raised to 4 hours, I’ve been able to make a round trip for $5.50 (I would sometimes make it under the old 2 hour limit, but usually not), giving the MTA an additional $1.00 in revenue (compared to taking the local bus and ferry there). Some people might want to run a quick errand, but the additional fare might deter them from doing so (or they might walk instead of using public transportation).
For example, I used to live in Brooklyn, and would take the subway to Sheepshead Bay and then use my transfer to take the B49 bus back. If there was an additional fare required, I would’ve walked both ways.
If that were allowed, do you think the MTA would lose revenue?
I doubt any loss would be really significant, if at all.
-Already, relatively few riders actually make a round-trip on one fare. Two hours just isn’t enough to accomplish anything more than running a few errands.
-Like I said, if a person is making that type of long commute every day, they either have an Unlimited MetroCard, or are driving, so this might encourage some drivers to make these types of trips via public transit.
-This encourages people to make these type of short trips to run errands, since they only have to pay one fare.
What is being described is similar to the fare structure in Las Vegas. Take note of the fact that a single cash fare is in effect a waist of money since no transfers will be issued.
2-Hr. All Access Pass $3* $1.50*
24-Hr. General Market Pass
24-hour period begins at time of purchase. $5 $2
3-Day All Access Pass
3-day validation occurs when pass is purchased at a TVM. Tickets purchased online or in the mail can be validated at a TVM or on a vehicle. $15*?
$7.50*?
5-Day All Access Pass
5-day validation occurs when pass is purchased at a TVM. Tickets purchased online or in the mail can be validated at a TVM or on a vehicle. $20*?
$10*?
30-Day All Access Pass
30-day period begins after ticket is validated with a TVM or on vehicle. $65*?
$30*?
All general market/residential passes are valid on the Strip & Downtown Express formerly the Gold Line and Deuce with a local ID.
Premium Service
Premium Service includes The Deuce and the Strip & Downtown Express formerly the Gold Line
Regular Fare Reduced Fare
2-Hr. All Access Pass $5*? $2.50*? ALL PASSES
24-Hr. All Access Pass
24-hour period begins at the time of purchase. $7* $3.50*
3-Day All Access Pass
3-day validation occurs when pass is purchased at a TVM or on Vehicle
$20?* $10?*
30-Day All Access Pass
30-day period begins after ticket is validated with a TVM or on vehicle. $65?* $30?*
* Includes access to all RTC fixed route services.
? Cannot be purchased on vehicles.
First of all, thanks for publishing my question.
The actual dollar values were just round numbers for ease of discussion, I had no attachment to those actual values, only their relative value to each other (i.e. a weekly was the same cost as 5 dailies, thus making weekends free, and a monthly was the cost of 4 weeklies).
My follow up question is to those who are single ride advocates, either the bike in and subway out method, or the highly infrequent user:
Would you be more amenable to the following structure? (again, amounts are chosen to be relative to one another, I assume that they will change over time):
1st swipe of the day: $2.50
2nd swipe of the day: $2.50
3rd+ swipe of the day: free
No more than $25 charged in any calendar week.
A day remains defined as 2am to 2am (I was once told this by an MTA employee, and have never seen evidence that it was incorrect).
The key to this system being that the person doesn’t have to guess ahead of time how much they’re going to use the system in the next week or month, they know that they get automatically upgraded to the best-fit bulk plan.
As for transfers, I assume that all of the fussing with paper transfer cards is of some considerable expense to the MTA in accounting, delaying the bus to give the transfer, and the litter involved. Eliminating that, while keeping the rider’s sense of “free”, seemed important.
I’m interested to hear if this modification would appeal to the commenters who advocated single-ride.
That would be a good idea (though, perhaps the free rides should kick in after 3 rides, so that you do encourage some extra use of the system. Plus, the former One-Day Fun pass required 4 rides in order to be a better value than the PPR MetroCard, so it would be a similar concept).
What Miami-Dade Transit does is charge $2.00 for the base fare, $0.50 for transfers, and $5.00 for an all-day pass. I thought it was great (as a tourist), as it encouraged my family to travel to more attractions, but it probably should’ve been more like $6.00.
Then again, the Miami-Dade system isn’t as high-quality as the NYC system, which means that they have more of a need to attract riders.
Many things that you consider features of the plan are actually bugs. Namely:
1. Day passes don’t cost twice as much a single-ride. A more common multiplier is 3-4. The reason is that you want to differentiate between regular commuters and tourists.
2. One advantage of getting people to buy unlimited cards in advance is that it eliminates the incentive to dodge the fare. On a robust POP system, it makes a difference.
3. Free transfers are a cornerstone of good transit. With any decent transit ticket – a magnetic swipe card, a smartcard, or unlimited monthly paper tickets – the transaction costs involved are zero. The proportion of riders buying a new ticket every time they ride should be approximately zero.
4. This system interacts very poorly with any attempt to institute an integrated regional ticketing system. If I ride the subway 20 times and a commuter train another 20 times, do I get switched to an unlimited monthly for the subway? If I ride a commuter train, do I get charged full fare or only the difference?
By the way, how would it work for people who want to get 2 riders in at the same time, on one card. Would only the first ride count towards the unlimited rides?
By the way, for the record, I believe all of the subways and local buses should be free.
I prefer the Oyster-style system, where a pay-as-you-go card is capped at the price of a one-day unlimited card. Let’s say you buy a PAYG Oyster and only use zone 1, where a ride is £1.90 (regardless of the time of day). If you use the system 4 or fewer times in a day, you are still on PAYG, while 5 or more trips never exceeds a daily limit of £8. The MTA should either consider this type of auto-capping or peak fares, so that a ride during peak hour is $2.50 and off-peak is $2, perhaps $1.75 to encourage such usage. How this would affect unlimited cards I’m not sure. Maybe there can be two types, true unlimited and unlimited off-peak, with the latter not functional during peak periods and more discounted.
This is already implemented on the EasyPay XPress MetroCards, except that the unlimited rides kick in after the cost of a monthly pass is exceeded.
I think peak/off-peak pricing is good, but I’m not sure it should apply to unlimited passes. Most unlimited MetroCard users only make 2 peak rides per day-to/from work anyway.
[…] elimination of the pay-per-ride system on the subway be a possibility in the future? [Second Avenue […]
What about people who only ride a few times a week, and on some weeks even less?
Not everybody is either a daily commuter or a total stay-at-home.
If worst comes to worst fiscally, I could see doing the opposite.
Maybe they’ll have to eliminate commutation cards and sell ONLY pay-per-ride MetroCards.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but remember that for most of the history of the transit system, there were no commutation discounts.
Let me add here that we should remember that some of the poorest areas of the city are at the greatest distance from Midtown.
(e.g. Coney Island, Far Rockaway, Jamaica.)
Zones would never be a good idea here, primarily for that reason.
There is value to automatically making the card a monthly pass once the break even point is passed. But eliminating pay-per-ride, I see no benefit to.
One other thing that I think would be helpful would be making monthly MetroCards work the same way as monthly train passes: by calendar month. Makes it easier to keep track of.
I’m an strong advocate of a fare system that gives you an hour or two of unlimited rides for one fare. You’ll find this in Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver and many cities around the world. This system is fairer to people using multiple routes, trip chaining or just making a short trip. (It also makes it easier to implement a proof-of-payment system with periodic fare inspections, instead of making everyone pay on the bus, thus reducing trip lengths by 20 percent or more). Remember that the introduction of bus-subway transfers in 1997 resulted in a very large ridership increase!
Some cities sell daily passes for the cost of two trips, but these are usually smaller cities that can absorb any increased ridership.