5 ms·

The "same price" caveat of your example is a pretty darn big exception. Quality of life would dramatically improve if we could get there, but for now, the fact

by rmxt 11y ago

The "same price" caveat of your example is a pretty darn big exception. Quality of life would dramatically improve if we could get there, but for now, the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does?

GuiA 11y ago
For sure. And NYC is a bit of an outlier, given that it probably has the best public transit infrastructure in all of the United States. That being said, I don't see why a potential future "Uberized" public transportation system couldn't offer flat rates, or even lower rates to people with lower incomes.
- vtlynch 11y ago
  Because the "Uberized" system (at the moment) will still rely on individual vehicles. There is simply no way to compete in price with this set up. The true stupidity of the pro-Uber flock is that they are accepting Uber's "innovative" business as the solution instead of looking at what the real innovation would be: a decently funded public transit system in the USA.
jonknee 11y ago
What the MTA charges and what it costs the MTA aren't related. They receive massive subsidies (though amusingly the biggest subsidies go to the LIRR for people commuting in from the suburbs). http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get-7-per-ride-subway-riders-a-buck/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get...
chimeracoder 11y ago
> the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Also, the people who need to travel the furthest in NYC tend to be the ones who can afford it the least[0], which makes the flat price incredibly important. Let's not forget that one-third of all subway stops in the US are in NYC[1]. Unlimited travel between any two of these costs $116/month. That's an incredible deal indeed! > Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does? Absolutely not; the MTA itself barely 'settles' for it. They're robbed blind every year by the state legislature, because most of the folks in Albany don't care about public transit in the city. Every year, the MTA is the perennial scapegoat for the state's budget issues, and they end up having to pick up the slack and take the public heat. No private company would ever stand for this, and the MTA only does because it literally has no other choice (being a highly regulated entity). [0] This is not always true in some other cities, where the people traveling the furthest by public transit tend to be coming from the wealthiest areas and working the highest-paying jobs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

by rmxt 11y ago

GuiA 11y ago

For sure. And NYC is a bit of an outlier, given that it probably has the best public transit infrastructure in all of the United States. That being said, I don't see why a potential future "Uberized" public transportation system couldn't offer flat rates, or even lower rates to people with lower incomes.

vtlynch 11y ago
Because the "Uberized" system (at the moment) will still rely on individual vehicles. There is simply no way to compete in price with this set up. The true stupidity of the pro-Uber flock is that they are accepting Uber's "innovative" business as the solution instead of looking at what the real innovation would be: a decently funded public transit system in the USA.

jonknee 11y ago

What the MTA charges and what it costs the MTA aren't related. They receive massive subsidies (though amusingly the biggest subsidies go to the LIRR for people commuting in from the suburbs). http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get-7-per-ride-subway-riders-a-buck/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get...

chimeracoder 11y ago

> the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Also, the people who need to travel the furthest in NYC tend to be the ones who can afford it the least[0], which makes the flat price incredibly important. Let's not forget that one-third of all subway stops in the US are in NYC[1]. Unlimited travel between any two of these costs $116/month. That's an incredible deal indeed! > Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does? Absolutely not; the MTA itself barely 'settles' for it. They're robbed blind every year by the state legislature, because most of the folks in Albany don't care about public transit in the city. Every year, the MTA is the perennial scapegoat for the state's budget issues, and they end up having to pick up the slack and take the public heat. No private company would ever stand for this, and the MTA only does because it literally has no other choice (being a highly regulated entity). [0] This is not always true in some other cities, where the people traveling the furthest by public transit tend to be coming from the wealthiest areas and working the highest-paying jobs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems