> Not to be flip I grew up in Scarsdale, your comments definitely aren't foreign to me. > those who live in the nyc (ny) burbs subsidize your mass transit Th

> Not to be flip I grew up in Scarsdale, your comments definitely aren't foreign to me. > those who live in the nyc (ny) burbs subsidize your mass transit The problem I see with this is that I struggle to consider it "your" mass transit. Both the MTA and Metro North are owned by the state. One of them has 300k daily riders, the other has 5.5m daily riders. 150k of those MN riders end up in the city everyday, so both groups are using state owned products, one group is potentially using BOTH (I always did when I commuted from Westchester to the financial district). The 4 commuter lines combined (NJTransit, PATH, LIRR, Metro North) have 1/3 the total daily ridership of the subway, but get almost double the amount of subsidies from state coffers. Growing up, I can count the number of parents who didn't commute to the city on both hands. Being wealthy enough to live in the suburbs doesn't mean your money is generated there. The median income in Scarsdale is $250k. I doubt that Scarsdale Flowers is the one lifting that average, so the people being taxed for it are the ones who actually use it anyway. I realize this is only one of the suburbs, but it's the one I'm personally familiar with. > Income based financing schemes almost always fail in nonhomogeneous environments to be 'fair.' I'm definitely not arguing for it. In fact, I usually argue against it. I'm just pointing out why I think the argument is being made, given that the subway isn't in as bad shape as the news makes it sound.