Gothamist: With Threat of Fare Hike, More Ideas for MTA to Save

johnnye

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:29:58 -0500

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?

snowman

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:13:18 -0500

"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

sonyactivision

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:19:30 -0500

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.

David McCaffredy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:44:59 -0500

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...

shovel

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:25:51 -0500

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.

Think twice

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:01:47 -0500

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.

Think twice

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:57:19 -0500

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.

Think twice

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:50:32 -0500

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.

dr zippy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:33:49 -0500

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.

Kojak

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:23:37 -0500

"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.

JMH

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:18:31 -0500

dr zippy wrote:Your two dollar ride on the F train costs the MTA about six dollars.But MidCFrank wrote:NYers pay the highest percentage of the cost of a ride -- over 50%.So which is it? 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.

Think twice

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:00:42 -0500

"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.

NYDirk

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:42:42 -0500

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

moxy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:23:26 -0500

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.

Kojak

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:14:44 -0500

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.

smh

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:49:59 -0500

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.

MidCFrank

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:30:50 -0500

No transit systems make a profit. NYers pay the highest percentage of the cost of a ride -- over 50%. In other US cities, the far covers less than 25% of the cost of a ride. The biggest issue is that federal law will not allow any state more than 20% of the total Mass Transit appropriations -- but NY State has more mass transit riders than any other state -- so we get screwed.

henricus

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:29:20 -0500

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).

dr zippy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:17:34 -0500

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.

JMH

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:07:54 -0500

Does anyone know the financial figures for The Tube in London? Are they above profit? Surely they have a more open accounting system there...If the London Underground is a profitable system (my hunch is that it is not, because that's not really the primary goal of public transit), I'd expect that it's due to the fact that their fares are so much higher than ours (n.b. link is to a PDF) rather than because of differences in their accounting system. If we paid as much as they do I'm sure our transit system would be in better shape too.

sonyactivision

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:29:53 -0500

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

ianmac47

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:52:36 -0500

Why not fire Executive Director and CEO Elliot Sander. He's obviously incapable of managing the system without fare hikes AND you save all that money he would otherwise be paid.

David McCaffredy

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:09:55 -0500

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

esquared

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:07:55 -0500

I still don't understand why the MTA has a flat rate fee for the commuters. MTA should have a different fares for on-peak and off-peak hours. Why should commuters pay the same fare during the weekends and evening and late-night hours for longer waits and commute, more transfers, and less service? Also, if one has to pay more during rush hours, this should discourage tourists, or whoever who does not have to get to their destination in a rush, from riding the trains (hopefully) during the rush hour commute, whereby if they wait until, let's say, after 10 am or so, they can pay less.

Alex

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:59:30 -0500

Ugh yeah, pretty soon the entire interior and exterior of the trains will be covered in Stoli ads. All of these measures are like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. What the MTA needs is more funding not worthless measures that work only in the extremely short term.

edEx

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:53:25 -0500

more ads?

Alex

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:49:43 -0500

Instead of wasting his time with plans like closing Park Avenue on Sundays in August, why doesn't the mayor actually do something for ordinary New Yorkers and fight for more funding, whether it be in Albany or Washington. The MTA is definitely mismanaged, but it's also extremely underfunded.

JMH

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:47:30 -0500

It's a good thing we didn't take the opportunity to get all that congestion pricing money, because clearly we didn't need it.

PBRK

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:16:05 -0500

The MTA needs to lease its expensive land, not sell it off.

citizenerased

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:05:43 -0500

Again, charge fat people that take up two (sometimes three) seats double for a metro-card. Have an electronic scale at the bottom of the metro-card machine. Problem solved.