7 ms·

I've always thought that fares should be more symbolic than a real source of revenue. They should definitely be low enough that even the poorest residents of t

I've always thought that fares should be more symbolic than a real source of revenue. They should definitely be low enough that even the poorest residents of the city can easily afford to travel on public transportation.

martinald 8y ago
Why? Transport for London is close, if not past, covering operational (and some, but not all, very significant capital) expenditure from fares, property and advertising revenue. MTR in Hong Kong also is profitable, as I believe many Japanese networks are. Being run entirely from fares means you are not at the whim of politicians for subsidies and grants that can change overnight with an election, which makes it very hard to think longer term. I think this is what NYC should be aiming for - operationally covering its own operational costs from fares, advertising and property revenues with then state/federal grants for larger capital projects.
- closetohome 8y ago
  I have no argument with transit systems being self-sufficient, nor with fares providing a reliable source of funding. But what needs to happen, ethically, is for the relief valve to be elsewhere when it comes time to balance the budget. Maybe that means more advertising, maybe it means cutting costs. But it shouldn't be taken from the users of the system, because their demand is flexible (as we're seeing in NY), and the inflexible ones are the people who already have no alternative and are hit the hardest.
- yholio 8y ago
  I think the conclusion from this sub-thread is that the London subway is insanely expensive compared to most of the rest of the world. There might be local reasons that afford it such price gouging power, like the lack of any reasonable transport alternative and the nature of London's road infrastructure, congestion and parking fees etc. A fee increase to that level in other cities might have the opposite effect of reducing ridership and total revenues, against a largely fixed expense base, condemning the subway to a real "death subway". The externalities of transport are massive, if a small number of people device to spend 15 minutes more in traffic to save the 8 pounds subway fare, the costs to society are simply astronomical because now everybody else has to spend those 15 minutes more too to get to where they need to go, even if they don't have the option of public transport for their route.
  - talldan 8y ago
    The Underground is cheaper and/or more reliable when compared to the national rail network many use to commute into London. Ridiculously so. I think that contrast helps those in London value the Underground. Also the reason many choose to still live where there's a tube line. It's also worth noting buses are much cheaper than the tube and quite accessible compared to a lot of places, though much slower.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    London is priced as it is because from this year or next, I forget which, it has no government money. All running costs must come from fares and advertising. Prices have changed accordingly. Unlike roads which are entirely funded by government. So a comparison is always going to make "public transport" (ironic considering it's the transport not receiving public funds) look more expensive.
    - martinald 8y ago
      Ironically in London the trunk road network maintenance will be paid out of TfLs public transport fare budget, as TfL has a legal duty to maintain the major roads in London but has no government operating grant. Hopefully this will be resolved soon!
  - martinald 8y ago
    The other way to look at it is that it is a high quality reliable product that can charge a "premium" so to speak. While people in London complain, all lines will have CBTC in the next couple of years (the vast majority already do), running at 30-36trains per hour per direction across rush hour depending on the line. It is very rare for there to be major service issues on more than one or two lines at a time, comparing that to service status in NYC which often has dozens of lines with various issues. My point really is that "even" £8 isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And that money going into the system allows it to work well.
- afterburner 8y ago
  Are you seriously asking why public transit should be affordable for poor people? I guess they should just buy a car instead, right? Or live in Manhattan and walk to work?
  - martinald 8y ago
    No, not at all. It is a very blunt tool to say fares should be cheap so that poor people can afford them. There are much better ways to do this, eg offer discounted trip cards to people on certain social security programs (Medicaid eligibility comes to mind). Price differentiation 101. This should be funded out of social security budgets, not transport budgets IMO.
rayiner 8y ago
Most of the people who ride the subway are not poor, and the average subway rider is probably richer than the average NYS taxpayer. Why subsidize the transportation of all the middle class and rich people who ride the subway every day?
- wolco 8y ago
  Shuting down the subway would affect everyone. The poor are stuck on buses and the traffic would make their lives worse.

martinald 8y ago

Why? Transport for London is close, if not past, covering operational (and some, but not all, very significant capital) expenditure from fares, property and advertising revenue. MTR in Hong Kong also is profitable, as I believe many Japanese networks are. Being run entirely from fares means you are not at the whim of politicians for subsidies and grants that can change overnight with an election, which makes it very hard to think longer term. I think this is what NYC should be aiming for - operationally covering its own operational costs from fares, advertising and property revenues with then state/federal grants for larger capital projects.

closetohome 8y ago
I have no argument with transit systems being self-sufficient, nor with fares providing a reliable source of funding. But what needs to happen, ethically, is for the relief valve to be elsewhere when it comes time to balance the budget. Maybe that means more advertising, maybe it means cutting costs. But it shouldn't be taken from the users of the system, because their demand is flexible (as we're seeing in NY), and the inflexible ones are the people who already have no alternative and are hit the hardest.
yholio 8y ago
I think the conclusion from this sub-thread is that the London subway is insanely expensive compared to most of the rest of the world. There might be local reasons that afford it such price gouging power, like the lack of any reasonable transport alternative and the nature of London's road infrastructure, congestion and parking fees etc. A fee increase to that level in other cities might have the opposite effect of reducing ridership and total revenues, against a largely fixed expense base, condemning the subway to a real "death subway". The externalities of transport are massive, if a small number of people device to spend 15 minutes more in traffic to save the 8 pounds subway fare, the costs to society are simply astronomical because now everybody else has to spend those 15 minutes more too to get to where they need to go, even if they don't have the option of public transport for their route.
- talldan 8y ago
  The Underground is cheaper and/or more reliable when compared to the national rail network many use to commute into London. Ridiculously so. I think that contrast helps those in London value the Underground. Also the reason many choose to still live where there's a tube line. It's also worth noting buses are much cheaper than the tube and quite accessible compared to a lot of places, though much slower.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  London is priced as it is because from this year or next, I forget which, it has no government money. All running costs must come from fares and advertising. Prices have changed accordingly. Unlike roads which are entirely funded by government. So a comparison is always going to make "public transport" (ironic considering it's the transport not receiving public funds) look more expensive.
  - martinald 8y ago
    Ironically in London the trunk road network maintenance will be paid out of TfLs public transport fare budget, as TfL has a legal duty to maintain the major roads in London but has no government operating grant. Hopefully this will be resolved soon!
- martinald 8y ago
  The other way to look at it is that it is a high quality reliable product that can charge a "premium" so to speak. While people in London complain, all lines will have CBTC in the next couple of years (the vast majority already do), running at 30-36trains per hour per direction across rush hour depending on the line. It is very rare for there to be major service issues on more than one or two lines at a time, comparing that to service status in NYC which often has dozens of lines with various issues. My point really is that "even" £8 isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And that money going into the system allows it to work well.
afterburner 8y ago
Are you seriously asking why public transit should be affordable for poor people? I guess they should just buy a car instead, right? Or live in Manhattan and walk to work?
- martinald 8y ago
  No, not at all. It is a very blunt tool to say fares should be cheap so that poor people can afford them. There are much better ways to do this, eg offer discounted trip cards to people on certain social security programs (Medicaid eligibility comes to mind). Price differentiation 101. This should be funded out of social security budgets, not transport budgets IMO.

rayiner 8y ago

Most of the people who ride the subway are not poor, and the average subway rider is probably richer than the average NYS taxpayer. Why subsidize the transportation of all the middle class and rich people who ride the subway every day?

wolco 8y ago
Shuting down the subway would affect everyone. The poor are stuck on buses and the traffic would make their lives worse.