5 ms·

Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so. I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MT

by dlp211 2y ago

Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so. I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MTA should just do that without a revenue source to replace rider fares. It would result in a completely broken subway system.

disambiguation 2y ago
Huh? Free? A ton of tax money goes to both road maintenance and public transportation. This kind of price hiking comes off as a double-dip. Surely they have enough money in the budget already?
- ryukafalz 2y ago
  > Surely they have enough money in the budget already? No, the MTA seems to be running with a substantial deficit right now: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics Removing fare revenue would only exacerbate that as a large portion of their revenue comes from fares.
  - disambiguation 2y ago
    nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year. labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems. a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?
    - ryukafalz 2y ago
      > but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money? Not necessarily. Consider: what would they cut? Run fewer trains? Reducing frequency has a huge negative effect on how convenient transfers are, which means you're likely pushing more riders away. (It can be the difference between hopping off one train and catching a new one 5 minutes later rather than 10 or 15 minutes later. Not a fun change in the middle of your trips!) That can then lead to even less fare revenue... and you really don't want that, it's the infamous transit death spiral.

5 ms·

Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so. I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MT

by dlp211 2y ago

disambiguation 2y ago
Huh? Free? A ton of tax money goes to both road maintenance and public transportation. This kind of price hiking comes off as a double-dip. Surely they have enough money in the budget already?
- ryukafalz 2y ago
  > Surely they have enough money in the budget already? No, the MTA seems to be running with a substantial deficit right now: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics Removing fare revenue would only exacerbate that as a large portion of their revenue comes from fares.
  - disambiguation 2y ago
    nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year. labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems. a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?
    - ryukafalz 2y ago
      > but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money? Not necessarily. Consider: what would they cut? Run fewer trains? Reducing frequency has a huge negative effect on how convenient transfers are, which means you're likely pushing more riders away. (It can be the difference between hopping off one train and catching a new one 5 minutes later rather than 10 or 15 minutes later. Not a fun change in the middle of your trips!) That can then lead to even less fare revenue... and you really don't want that, it's the infamous transit death spiral.