I am with JMH on variable pricing. More zones = more costs so the rider should be paying more.

Snowman -

"Yeah but he'll subsidize/make gas cheap again so it doesn't matter!!! Problem solved! wooo"

Why would you think that? Since the Democrats have been in control of congress the gas price has doubled and it is at the price of $4/gal they actually wanted it to be all along. They must have been given some of that oil money from Bush's friends huh?

"Now go ask Barack Obama what visionary plans he has for mass transit in America. Go ahead. Ask."

Yeah but he'll subsidize/make gas cheap again so it doesn't matter!!! Problem solved! wooo

The Interstate System is completed. Most new major highways being proposed are either tollways that are privately financed or state initiated roads that require fewer federal dollars. With so little new construction and only rehabilitation and maintenance issues for most of the system, much more federal money would be available for transit if the dollars weren't diverted to pay for Iraq, Halliburton, and Laura Bush's brazillian waxes. At the end of the day, you spend big on mass transit, not to make a stupid fucking "profit", but to prevent the alternative: costly gridlock and congestion. Now go ask Barack Obama what visionary plans he has for mass transit in america. Go ahead. Ask.

Next discussion-provoking topic: I'd be interested in finding out the annual amount of federal dollars go toward the highway system vs mass transit. Obviously more people are on the highway system and they should justly receive more funds, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're a couple of lean years away from siphoning a percentage of highway funds toward expanding the mass transit system...

You can shut down the system between 1am and 5am for maintenance every day like other systems do.

Realistically that will put more late night bicycles on the road along with the inevitable increase in drunk drivers.

Re: #17

The IND stations have these aircraft carrier sized mezzanines that are mostly empty. These too could be leased out to businesses. Plus all those extra eyes underground could help with security.

Re: #5

No objection from me.

Bring on the wrap-around ads, Zoetrope tunnel ads, and platform cellphone reception, if that's what it'll take to postpone the next fare hike or build the 2nd Avenue subway.

Re: #21

You're right.

That leads me to my next fear; that the MTA will get the money for capital projects, but fritter it away for it's mismanaged, bureaucratic, belated, and inefficient operation and maintainence.

Most others don't realize that the BMT, in it's day, had to compete with the IRT, H&M, and IND while answering to the city and it's own shareholders.

It is safe to assume MidCFrank has more command of the facts than me. The larger point being the MTA doesn't come close to making a profit.

If running the subway system were profitable companies would be competing to run it.

"Our subways were profitable, before the MTA that is."

The operational running of the system? Possibly yes. But there is no way the system can finance most its own upgrades and system expansion projects that can run into the tens of billions of dollars. The government has to fit a huge chunk of that bill.

The 2nd avenue subway is a prime example of that. Same goes for the LIRR extension into Grand Central. Such projects are extremely expensive.

dr zippy wrote:

Your two dollar ride on the F train costs the MTA about six dollars.

NYers pay the highest percentage of the cost of a ride -- over 50%.

Personally, I'm in favor of variable pricing. I'm not sure why I should pay the same to ride the A train two stops from my apartment near the Jay St./Borough Hall station to my office near the Broadway/Nassau station as my friend who lives in Inwood pays to ride it all the way from Dyckman Street to Howard Beach/JFK if he's going to the airport. It's a great deal paying a flat fare to get anywhere, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

"No mass transit system makes a profit."

From www.nyrapidtransit.com:

According to Moody's Investor's Manual "the B.M.T. (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Co.) has demonstrated its ability to earn a dividend on its common stock at a five cent fare"

Our subways were profitable, before the MTA that is.

Have young kids walk the length of the subway selling candy to raise money.

I believe that the Hong Kong subway system (privately managed) does in fact turn a profit. However, the profitable dollars don't come from fares but from the fact that they lease out the valuable commercial space in the stations themselves.

You can shut down the system between 1am and 5am for maintenance every day like other systems do. That'll save some dough and repairs can be made without the pain of rerouting trains during busy times.

This is the only 24/7 subway system of its size. But then again this is the city that never sleeps and many people rely on those late night trains. But its something to think about.

God, don't make it like London. In London, you pay by the zone (the further you travel, the more you pay). A one-way ride on the London tube within Zone 1 (city center) cost 4GBP or around $8.

Setting up a zone system, similar to London's, is essentially a tax on the poor. It's a very classist system.

The underground isn't the only subway in the world you know. The metro in Paris runs relatively smoothly in a cleaner environment for roughly the same price we pay. My favourite example is that of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Trains arrive every minute (no lie) or so with delays very rare and the price is a little less than one U.S. dollar (or it was last year).

No mass transit system makes a profit. All require some form of government subsidy. Your two dollar ride on the F train costs the MTA about six dollars.

Does anyone know the financial figures for The Tube in London? Are they above profit? Surely they have a more open accounting system there...

Seize all of Bloomberg's assets and sell them off at auction to keep that fare hike at a minimum.