4 ms·

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 inter

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?
- bluGill 7y ago
  I'm not against welfare agencies subsidizing the poor. If we are subsidizing the poor that should be from a different budget: as far as the transit system is concerned rich or poor use the same resources so the income to the transit system should be the same even if it comes from a different pot.
osdiab 7y ago
I always liked the social implications of flat fares - poor people tend to have to live farther away so distance pricing, and especially peak pricing, basically makes life harder for people who already have a hard life. I think that the whole narrative around trains needing to justify their cost based on fares is ridiculous. Few people ride trains for the experience of riding a train. They ride to go somewhere, and do something, and the real value of the fate exists outside the transportation system. I think Japan, and HK got it right by letting train companies act as real estate developers and build out the areas around stations. That gives them enormous profitability since they can charge rent, commissions for the stuff that people actually care about - what’s at the destination - and literally funnel people in the millions to their shopping centers, office complexes, and apartments.
- objektif 7y ago
  Last bit about operators in Japan etc, fantastic idea. Thanks for pointing out.
- ghaff 7y ago
  People are probably reading too much into flat vs. variable fares. Historically, you probably tended to have flat fares on transit systems in no small part because it was so much simpler when people mostly paid using tokens (or transit passes, in which case flat or variable didn't matter). This is becoming less relevant with the increased prevalence of contactless pay as you go systems. (Although the newer systems tend to be more complex for irregular users like tourists.)
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    Yes! With modern systems, if you want to give poor riders reduced fares you can… give poor riders reduced fares. It's not hard. Just program the contactless system to do it. There are no real arguments for using flat fares in NYC besides tradition (which is not nothing). No one designing a system today would choose it for a system the size of NYC's.
    - 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?
bluGill 7y ago
I'm not against welfare agencies subsidizing the poor. If we are subsidizing the poor that should be from a different budget: as far as the transit system is concerned rich or poor use the same resources so the income to the transit system should be the same even if it comes from a different pot.

osdiab 7y ago

I always liked the social implications of flat fares - poor people tend to have to live farther away so distance pricing, and especially peak pricing, basically makes life harder for people who already have a hard life. I think that the whole narrative around trains needing to justify their cost based on fares is ridiculous. Few people ride trains for the experience of riding a train. They ride to go somewhere, and do something, and the real value of the fate exists outside the transportation system. I think Japan, and HK got it right by letting train companies act as real estate developers and build out the areas around stations. That gives them enormous profitability since they can charge rent, commissions for the stuff that people actually care about - what’s at the destination - and literally funnel people in the millions to their shopping centers, office complexes, and apartments.

objektif 7y ago
Last bit about operators in Japan etc, fantastic idea. Thanks for pointing out.
ghaff 7y ago
People are probably reading too much into flat vs. variable fares. Historically, you probably tended to have flat fares on transit systems in no small part because it was so much simpler when people mostly paid using tokens (or transit passes, in which case flat or variable didn't matter). This is becoming less relevant with the increased prevalence of contactless pay as you go systems. (Although the newer systems tend to be more complex for irregular users like tourists.)
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  Yes! With modern systems, if you want to give poor riders reduced fares you can… give poor riders reduced fares. It's not hard. Just program the contactless system to do it. There are no real arguments for using flat fares in NYC besides tradition (which is not nothing). No one designing a system today would choose it for a system the size of NYC's.
  - 7y ago