Metrocard Fare Likely To Go Up Again

I don't get it. The last time they raise the subway fares it was revealed that the MTA actually had a huge surplus, not a deficit and there was talk about lowering the fare hike back to the original. Now, not soon after the last increase, they want to increase it again! What happened to the surplus? Does anyone know the truth?

Good question, Nik, I was about to post a similar comment. From what I remember of those reports, the MTA had been claiming that it was well in the black only a few short years ago, but that they were suddenly hundreds of millions of dollars in the red and needed to raise fares. And I found it odd that after Alan Hevesi (state comptroller) came out with that report of the MTA keeping double books, there wasn't much of a peep in the news after, which surprised me because it sounded like a seriously huge scandal. I also suspect that the MTA is the most corrupt agency in the state, but I have no proof or anything, just a gut feeling...

Instead of having sponsors pay to have their names plastered all over historic stations, why don't they sell more space on the MetroCard itself? Is there anyone who would be upset over changing the colors or design of the card, and putting more ads on it? How much would Coca-Cola or Nike pay to put their ads in the hands of millions of New Yorkers millions of times a day?

That's one way the MTA could make a few bucks before it tries to balance its books on the backs of working commuters.

The pic of the card reminded me: the MTA really needs to color code cards that are time-based (weeklies, monthlies) differently from those that are dollar-based. Parents often have a monthly, and a supplemental card with dollars on it for their children; but you can't tell them apart easily.

Robot,

Oh, what brilliance. So you think tolls are going to cut down on traffic in Manhattan, do you?

Think again. It would slow to an even more intolerable crawl, as cars stopped (or slowed, for EzPass users) to pay the toll. All that back-up would snake right out into the streets. A nightmare. Just try driving in Tribeca around rush hour to see what I mean.

Those driving into Manhattan pay their share of the highway taxes, too. And many of them are commericial vehicles and business people who NEED their cars and vans. Not to mention that the subway's not an option for all of us. Look at a map of Queens, for instance, and you'll see how many people live 20, 30 blocks or even further from the nearest station. And yet, the 2nd Ave subway is ohhh, such a sorely needed addition to the system.

The real answer, my friend, is graduated fares. Straphangers getting a $2 ride from places like Sheepshead Bay need to face reality. It's what you find in just about every other city. The fair way, and the right way to pay for mass transit.

Sasha,

You should look at some of the studies on East River bridge tolling that indicate *reduced* congestion, rather than increased congestion. Please also remember that ERBT can be done with non-stop EZ-Pass (45mph+). Congestion pricing has worked fantastically well in central London, so much so that TfL (Transport for London) has had to change the bus schedules to reflect the fact that buses are now arriving at stops EARLY! Because of this success, many other cities are now studying congestion pricing. In fact, many "free-market", libertarian wonks love it.

Also, regarding workers who need to use the bridges -- their time is money. Reduced time waiting in traffic seems like a good trade for a couple bucks, no?

It's unfortunate that many people in areas of Queens and Brooklyn are underserved by transit. With the additional money from tolling, hopefully some areas would get transit service. Other areas, however, will probably *never* get subway service, since succesful mass transit is predicated on density. However, people who live in such sprawling, suburban areas are usually more well-do-to, and can certainly afford a few bucks for the toll. Those are the choices they've made by living there.

If you're interested, you can read some of these studies at the Bridge Tolls Advocacy Project.

http://bridgetolls.org/

Please note that I am not affiliated them.

You also might want to poke around the Regional Plan Association website:

http://rpa.org

About the graduated fare, I don't know how I feel about that one. But don't be under any illusion that the amount paid at the "farebox" in any way covers operating expenses of the subway. It doesn't in ANY public transit system. Public transit is a public good, and there are good reasons to "subsidize" it. Automotive transit has severe, pervasive, negative impacts on society -- we are realizing now that perhaps we need to reduce the massive subsidies to it. Congestion pricing is but one way to restore some rational balance to our transportation policy.

You're right, Mike.

Time is money. That's why I choose a 20 minute drive to the Village when I head out at night, rather than a nearly hourlong subway ride from Astoria (including walks to and from stations.) Maybe if the subways served ALL of us as well as they do Manhattanites, we'd be less attached to our cars out here. And it has nothing to do with affluence. I own a car as a condition of employment, and I'm hardly alone. My job's not something that could be done on a bike, on foot, and sure as hell not on the subways or buses.

It's people like you who always bitch and moan when commodity prices go up and the "working people" you claim to care about lose jobs. Tolling those bridges would also have a huge financial impact on city businesses. I say, no thanks.

And I'm with you, Sasha. Graduate those fares. And while you're at it, toss some of the scores of city subsidies that go to LAZY people who make no discernable contribution to society. Those of us working hard to get by could use the cash.