7 ms·

MTA operates near capacity during peak time. It doesn't need more riders then. But NYC lacks peak pricing.

jayd16 7y ago
Peak pricing is an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. Seems like a good way to increase rates in a somewhat progressive way. Presumably rush hour commuters could afford more than others.
- briandear 7y ago
  Peak pricing is also a market approach that embraces supply and demand. It’s a good idea.
  - kingkawn 7y ago
    Except it will wildly harm the poor who rely on the subway
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    Market approaches work when demand is elastic. It's pretty easy to deduce that there is an anticorrelation between ability to adjust riding schedules and ability to pay increased fees.
    - dantheman 7y ago
      Why, shifts can change - especially when it works out for everyone.
      - colechristensen 7y ago
        Restaurants aren't going to change their hours, hospitals aren't going to change their shifts, what motivation does an employer have to make changes? It doesn't cost employers anything so they are unlikely to care and jobs aren't exactly elastic goods either.
        bluGill 7y ago
        Restaurants don't need to change their hours - they need their employees in before the rush hour and working during it because that is when people are going to be there. You 7:45 coffee on the way to work was made by someone who got in at 6:00 am to setup the coffee pot. Hospitals aren't going to change their shifts (unless staff demands it - they might), but a large number of people going in at rush hour are not doing shift work where they need to be in at a particular time. I can adjust my schedule a lot if I want, fares (and traffic) can be motivation to doso.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  > Seems like a good way to increase rates in a somewhat progressive way. how is it progressive, exactly? seems like it’s just another tax on the poor who have to get to jobs at exact times.
  - jmknoll 7y ago
    Because professionals working full-time jobs and commuting at rush hour can typically afford the higher fare, while people working part-time/odd jobs/commuting to interviews/not working at all probably aren't the ones taking the rush hour trains. Sure, there are some working poor who need to be in the office 9-5, but the majority of people working full time regular hours aren't poor. And for people who can't afford the increase, you just introduce an exception (if you make under $40,000 per year you don't pay the increased fare, or something like that)
    - namdnay 7y ago
      You realise there’s a lot of people between wealthy professionals and part-time/odd job workers right? A secretary has to be on time, so does a cashier. I’m not sure what good peak pricing would do, apart from push them to less carbon-efficient forms of transport?
      - s1artibartfast 7y ago
        As long as the lines are still running at max capacity, you are still taking the same number of vehicles off the road. If you extend the period of max-capacity, you taking more cars off the road. The question is if the benefit of more revenue and environmental savings warrants making the secretaries an cashiers adapt to less efficient schedules (eg come in earlier, stay later)
        SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
        It's sad that making lower earners' lives even more difficult would even be a consideration in the first place. Increasing capacity would also result in taking more vehicles off the road.
earthboundkid 7y ago
MTA doesn’t even have variable pricing for distance. It’s a pretty poorly designed system qua system. It has good coverage. Everything else is substandard internationally.
- L_Rahman 7y ago
  Peak and especially distance based pricing are fundamentally regressive and unjust tax schemes that penalize the poor. Subway fares are already regressive in that they represent a larger share of income in poorer people than in the rich, making it distance based so that people who can't afford to live in the core are charged more makes the problem 10x worse.
  - iamthirsty 7y ago
    Just because you may have a larger income than others doesn't mean you should pay more money to equal a lower income person's cost percentage of income wise, that's unjust in itself.
    - miglmj 7y ago
      It doesn't mean you shouldn't, either. There's nuance to every situation, particularly when we're discussing the means by which some people quite literally survive, vs. luxury or leisure goods and services.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    Distance pricing seems to work just fine here in Japan, although I did't dig into the data on public transit, just based on my personal experience. Fares in Osaka or Tokyo are ~$2 per 3-4 stations from your departure point. Riding to Kyoto from downtown Osaka (40km) is ~$8 and 8 stops across two lines. The prices overall are low (IMO), and Japan has lower wage inequality than the US (IIRC).
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It’s not an unjust or regressive tax scheme to charge more for greater service. This is incorrectly repurposing the language of taxation to the reality of transit fares. It is certainly correct that having fixed fares across time and distance is a government subsidy which arguably may even effectively target poor riders. The lack of a subsidy is fundamentally not the same as a tax. But when a subsidy distorts the market to the point where it causes inefficiencies in the market, those inefficiencies can undermine the value or effectiveness of the subsidy, sometimes altogether. I.e. lack of peek pricing causing massive ridership spikes at specific hours overloading the system and making it break down. A theoretically better system might be one with a fixed monthly fare credit for low income riders, while also having peek pricing. This shifts demand to keep the system running more smoothly while also making transit more affordable for lower income riders. But then, why not ask the question, if we’re giving money to low income riders, why give rebates only to low income people who ride the train? Why have a low income subsidy specifically for subway ridership versus any of a dozen other things people fundamentally need. Why micromanage to that level?
objektif 7y ago
Emm how about increasing the capacity? For gods sake why would do such a thing like “peak procing” to a public transportation system :). Not everything is a optimization honework assignment. This is real life some unfortunate people who have less income than you have go to places too. Number of people during peak hours is enough deterrent itself. You dont need to introduce extra cost. Shall we introduce peak pricing to fire trucks as well?
namdnay 7y ago
Then the best thing to do is increase that capacity! Every rider on the subway is a bit less pollution in the city air

Peak pricing is an interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. Seems like a good way to increase rates in a somewhat progressive way. Presumably rush hour commuters could afford more than others.

briandear 7y ago
Peak pricing is also a market approach that embraces supply and demand. It’s a good idea.
- kingkawn 7y ago
  Except it will wildly harm the poor who rely on the subway
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Market approaches work when demand is elastic. It's pretty easy to deduce that there is an anticorrelation between ability to adjust riding schedules and ability to pay increased fees.
  - dantheman 7y ago
    Why, shifts can change - especially when it works out for everyone.
    - colechristensen 7y ago
      Restaurants aren't going to change their hours, hospitals aren't going to change their shifts, what motivation does an employer have to make changes? It doesn't cost employers anything so they are unlikely to care and jobs aren't exactly elastic goods either.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        Restaurants don't need to change their hours - they need their employees in before the rush hour and working during it because that is when people are going to be there. You 7:45 coffee on the way to work was made by someone who got in at 6:00 am to setup the coffee pot. Hospitals aren't going to change their shifts (unless staff demands it - they might), but a large number of people going in at rush hour are not doing shift work where they need to be in at a particular time. I can adjust my schedule a lot if I want, fares (and traffic) can be motivation to doso.
nikofeyn 7y ago
> Seems like a good way to increase rates in a somewhat progressive way. how is it progressive, exactly? seems like it’s just another tax on the poor who have to get to jobs at exact times.
- jmknoll 7y ago
  Because professionals working full-time jobs and commuting at rush hour can typically afford the higher fare, while people working part-time/odd jobs/commuting to interviews/not working at all probably aren't the ones taking the rush hour trains. Sure, there are some working poor who need to be in the office 9-5, but the majority of people working full time regular hours aren't poor. And for people who can't afford the increase, you just introduce an exception (if you make under $40,000 per year you don't pay the increased fare, or something like that)
  - namdnay 7y ago
    You realise there’s a lot of people between wealthy professionals and part-time/odd job workers right? A secretary has to be on time, so does a cashier. I’m not sure what good peak pricing would do, apart from push them to less carbon-efficient forms of transport?
    - s1artibartfast 7y ago
      As long as the lines are still running at max capacity, you are still taking the same number of vehicles off the road. If you extend the period of max-capacity, you taking more cars off the road. The question is if the benefit of more revenue and environmental savings warrants making the secretaries an cashiers adapt to less efficient schedules (eg come in earlier, stay later)
      - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
        It's sad that making lower earners' lives even more difficult would even be a consideration in the first place. Increasing capacity would also result in taking more vehicles off the road.

earthboundkid 7y ago

MTA doesn’t even have variable pricing for distance. It’s a pretty poorly designed system qua system. It has good coverage. Everything else is substandard internationally.

L_Rahman 7y ago
Peak and especially distance based pricing are fundamentally regressive and unjust tax schemes that penalize the poor. Subway fares are already regressive in that they represent a larger share of income in poorer people than in the rich, making it distance based so that people who can't afford to live in the core are charged more makes the problem 10x worse.
- iamthirsty 7y ago
  Just because you may have a larger income than others doesn't mean you should pay more money to equal a lower income person's cost percentage of income wise, that's unjust in itself.
  - miglmj 7y ago
    It doesn't mean you shouldn't, either. There's nuance to every situation, particularly when we're discussing the means by which some people quite literally survive, vs. luxury or leisure goods and services.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  Distance pricing seems to work just fine here in Japan, although I did't dig into the data on public transit, just based on my personal experience. Fares in Osaka or Tokyo are ~$2 per 3-4 stations from your departure point. Riding to Kyoto from downtown Osaka (40km) is ~$8 and 8 stops across two lines. The prices overall are low (IMO), and Japan has lower wage inequality than the US (IIRC).
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s not an unjust or regressive tax scheme to charge more for greater service. This is incorrectly repurposing the language of taxation to the reality of transit fares. It is certainly correct that having fixed fares across time and distance is a government subsidy which arguably may even effectively target poor riders. The lack of a subsidy is fundamentally not the same as a tax. But when a subsidy distorts the market to the point where it causes inefficiencies in the market, those inefficiencies can undermine the value or effectiveness of the subsidy, sometimes altogether. I.e. lack of peek pricing causing massive ridership spikes at specific hours overloading the system and making it break down. A theoretically better system might be one with a fixed monthly fare credit for low income riders, while also having peek pricing. This shifts demand to keep the system running more smoothly while also making transit more affordable for lower income riders. But then, why not ask the question, if we’re giving money to low income riders, why give rebates only to low income people who ride the train? Why have a low income subsidy specifically for subway ridership versus any of a dozen other things people fundamentally need. Why micromanage to that level?

objektif 7y ago

Emm how about increasing the capacity? For gods sake why would do such a thing like “peak procing” to a public transportation system :). Not everything is a optimization honework assignment. This is real life some unfortunate people who have less income than you have go to places too. Number of people during peak hours is enough deterrent itself. You dont need to introduce extra cost. Shall we introduce peak pricing to fire trucks as well?

namdnay 7y ago

Then the best thing to do is increase that capacity! Every rider on the subway is a bit less pollution in the city air