7 ms·

This feels very dangerous. While able body adults could just jump it, anyone with a disability could be trapped. What if their was a fire ? This is a good argu

This feels very dangerous. While able body adults could just jump it, anyone with a disability could be trapped. What if their was a fire ? This is a good argument to just remove physical turnstiles and rely upon an honor system.

neom 5y ago
Next to those turnstyles is a large grated wall, it has a push bar emergency exit from the inside.
aaronharnly 5y ago
The turnstiles limit entry, not exit. Also there are exit doors that can be pushed open.
gruez 5y ago
>This is a good argument to just remove physical turnstiles and rely upon an honor system. I think the compliance rate would be very poor in NYC
- bombcar 5y ago
  According to my rough calculations, if the NYC farebox revenue was replaced by a state-wide tax it'd be $330 per person (roughly).
  - gruez 5y ago
    That $330 would be a hard sell to the 60% of the people who live in new york state but not in new york city. >if the NYC firebox revenue I'm assuming you mean farebox revenue right?
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Yes, stupid autocorrect. The basic idea would be to see how much they save vs all the costs spend on maintaining fair box revenue. However, there's also a political aspect (people have less of a problem paying for something they're using) and a policing aspect (you can kick out vagrants who don't have a ticket), and a "tax the non-voters" (out-of-towners pay for tickets, just like hotel tax, and this is popular with locals).
  - gregallan 5y ago
    Interesting, but I wonder what the additional cost to the median income taxpayer would be. Is there a straightforward way to figure this out?
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Yeah, it's hard to do because MTS is mainly used by residents of the area (which extends beyond New York City and even outside of the state). If it were actually done it'd probably be done as a tax with a credit, offsetting it for lower-income. I think it'd be interesting to make it part of the driver license/ID (even as an optional fee) so that your DL could be your subway card.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this. I'd rather tax luxury developers and employers of white-collar workers who commute to the office.
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      That's a great way to chase off more of the high-wage tax base in NYC. What's wrong with the fare model?
      - nerdponx 5y ago
        This is assuming that there are no fares, as suggested by GP. Also I think you are overestimating the elasticity of demand for residence in New York City with respect to tax rates, at least for people and businesses with large amounts of money. I'm not even close to what you would call a high income earner in New York City, but I would be fine with paying increased subway fares in order to subsidize bus fares in outer boroughs, paying $15 instead of $2.75 for East River ferry rides, etc. Shuffling around pocket change from people who won't even notice it's gone to people who need it desperately is not going to keep people out of New York. The biggest problem is real estate, both for the city's non-wealthy residents and for its small businesses. And even people with good incomes don't like being juiced for $4k++ in order to avoid living like a broke student with a 90 minute commute.
    - chimeracoder 5y ago
      > As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this The MTA already invests disproportionate levels of funds on commuter rail services that are used ~exclusively by non-city residents, far out of line with their usage. It's totally reasonable to have them contribute more, instead of forcing the city to shoulder an even greater burden. And that's just looking at MTA funds, not even considering the amount of money spent on maintaining free roads and highways in other parts of the state (the funding for which is already drawn disproportionately from NYC's tax base).
  - jsight 5y ago
    That sounds like a good bargain. The downside is that the MTA would no longer have as good of a reason to incentivize ridership. I feel like there'd be a lot of negative side effects to a change like that.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      The downside is that the 11 million people in the state who don't live in NYC might be upset about paying for the transit of the 8.4 million who do.
      - ska 5y ago
        And those people get infrastructure spending in their areas that NYC dwellers never use too. What you are pointing out is a fundamental issue with taxes; the only hope is to have a systems that citizens feel is mostly equitable.
        jfrunyon 5y ago
        No, what I'm pointing out is that the scales involved are preposterous in this case. 100% of the residents would be paying for services that are only available to ~41% of the residents. On the other hand, if it were, say, a tax in the service area of the MTA, then it would be mostly equitable.
        ska 5y ago
        But it's always the case that some tax revenue is used for things that most people paying into it won't benefit directly from. That's generally accepted when people believe the indirect benefit overall worthwhile. This means that worrying about the relative %ages often isn't that productive compared to asking what is the broader benefit. (I'm not, fwiw, making the argument one way or another based on NYC transit, just saying it's a more on target argument to make).
        jfrunyon 5y ago
- offtop5 5y ago
  Factor in you also wouldn't have to waste money on enforcement. I think if someone really ran the numbers you can make an argument you're wasting money by charging people for public transit. You'd also encourage less people to drive which could definitely help when it comes to the suburbs
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    This keeps getting parroted but is largely not true for the NYC Subway. The fares make up $6-7B of a total $15B in revenues due to sheer volume. The 2021 NYC budget is $88B. Hiking all taxes across the board 7% is a political nonstarter.
- supernova87a 5y ago
  Honor systems work where there is a culture of honesty when unsupervised. New York City, I'm afraid, is... not that. Also, the system is so large and geographically spread out that you could never have enough officers to enforce / spot check people to make them trust it. And one of the most frustrating things for the law-abiding is when law-breakers are not caught or disciplined. Law-abiding people themselves might stop participating out of frustration. The system would quickly collapse.
adolph 5y ago
The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this.
- chimeracoder 5y ago
  > The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this. They're not endangered in that they're free to leave, but it's not true that a gate agent is always present, despite what the MTA claims, so it's possible people would have been unable to enter if they are unable or unwilling to jump the turnstile. (In practice, there's almost always someone leaving the station/train, and they'd be able to open the emergency gate from the inside in a situation like this.)
gizmo686 5y ago
NYC Building code https://up.codes/viewer/new_york_city/nyc-building-code-2014/chapter/10/means-of-egress#1008 https://up.codes/viewer/new_york_city/nyc-building-code-2014... > Turnstiles or similar devices that restrict travel to one direction shall not be placed so as to obstruct any required means of egress. There are some exceptions. The type of turnstile pictured may be used for up to 50% of the required egress capacity, and must fail open (for egress) in event of power loss, as well as offer a manual override to allow for free egress. This style of turnstile can also not be counted for egress requirements when placed in an "accessible route". Additionally, > Where serving an occupant load greater than 300, each manually-operated turnstile and automatic turnstile that is not portable shall have a side-hinged swinging door which conforms to Section 1008.1 within 50 feet (15 240 mm).

neom 5y ago

Next to those turnstyles is a large grated wall, it has a push bar emergency exit from the inside.

aaronharnly 5y ago

The turnstiles limit entry, not exit. Also there are exit doors that can be pushed open.

gruez 5y ago

>This is a good argument to just remove physical turnstiles and rely upon an honor system. I think the compliance rate would be very poor in NYC

bombcar 5y ago
According to my rough calculations, if the NYC farebox revenue was replaced by a state-wide tax it'd be $330 per person (roughly).
- gruez 5y ago
  That $330 would be a hard sell to the 60% of the people who live in new york state but not in new york city. >if the NYC firebox revenue I'm assuming you mean farebox revenue right?
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Yes, stupid autocorrect. The basic idea would be to see how much they save vs all the costs spend on maintaining fair box revenue. However, there's also a political aspect (people have less of a problem paying for something they're using) and a policing aspect (you can kick out vagrants who don't have a ticket), and a "tax the non-voters" (out-of-towners pay for tickets, just like hotel tax, and this is popular with locals).
- gregallan 5y ago
  Interesting, but I wonder what the additional cost to the median income taxpayer would be. Is there a straightforward way to figure this out?
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Yeah, it's hard to do because MTS is mainly used by residents of the area (which extends beyond New York City and even outside of the state). If it were actually done it'd probably be done as a tax with a credit, offsetting it for lower-income. I think it'd be interesting to make it part of the driver license/ID (even as an optional fee) so that your DL could be your subway card.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this. I'd rather tax luxury developers and employers of white-collar workers who commute to the office.
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    That's a great way to chase off more of the high-wage tax base in NYC. What's wrong with the fare model?
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      This is assuming that there are no fares, as suggested by GP. Also I think you are overestimating the elasticity of demand for residence in New York City with respect to tax rates, at least for people and businesses with large amounts of money. I'm not even close to what you would call a high income earner in New York City, but I would be fine with paying increased subway fares in order to subsidize bus fares in outer boroughs, paying $15 instead of $2.75 for East River ferry rides, etc. Shuffling around pocket change from people who won't even notice it's gone to people who need it desperately is not going to keep people out of New York. The biggest problem is real estate, both for the city's non-wealthy residents and for its small businesses. And even people with good incomes don't like being juiced for $4k++ in order to avoid living like a broke student with a 90 minute commute.
  - chimeracoder 5y ago
    > As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this The MTA already invests disproportionate levels of funds on commuter rail services that are used ~exclusively by non-city residents, far out of line with their usage. It's totally reasonable to have them contribute more, instead of forcing the city to shoulder an even greater burden. And that's just looking at MTA funds, not even considering the amount of money spent on maintaining free roads and highways in other parts of the state (the funding for which is already drawn disproportionately from NYC's tax base).
- jsight 5y ago
  That sounds like a good bargain. The downside is that the MTA would no longer have as good of a reason to incentivize ridership. I feel like there'd be a lot of negative side effects to a change like that.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    The downside is that the 11 million people in the state who don't live in NYC might be upset about paying for the transit of the 8.4 million who do.
    - ska 5y ago
      And those people get infrastructure spending in their areas that NYC dwellers never use too. What you are pointing out is a fundamental issue with taxes; the only hope is to have a systems that citizens feel is mostly equitable.
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        No, what I'm pointing out is that the scales involved are preposterous in this case. 100% of the residents would be paying for services that are only available to ~41% of the residents. On the other hand, if it were, say, a tax in the service area of the MTA, then it would be mostly equitable.
        ska 5y ago
        But it's always the case that some tax revenue is used for things that most people paying into it won't benefit directly from. That's generally accepted when people believe the indirect benefit overall worthwhile. This means that worrying about the relative %ages often isn't that productive compared to asking what is the broader benefit. (I'm not, fwiw, making the argument one way or another based on NYC transit, just saying it's a more on target argument to make).
        jfrunyon 5y ago
offtop5 5y ago
Factor in you also wouldn't have to waste money on enforcement. I think if someone really ran the numbers you can make an argument you're wasting money by charging people for public transit. You'd also encourage less people to drive which could definitely help when it comes to the suburbs
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  This keeps getting parroted but is largely not true for the NYC Subway. The fares make up $6-7B of a total $15B in revenues due to sheer volume. The 2021 NYC budget is $88B. Hiking all taxes across the board 7% is a political nonstarter.
supernova87a 5y ago
Honor systems work where there is a culture of honesty when unsupervised. New York City, I'm afraid, is... not that. Also, the system is so large and geographically spread out that you could never have enough officers to enforce / spot check people to make them trust it. And one of the most frustrating things for the law-abiding is when law-breakers are not caught or disciplined. Law-abiding people themselves might stop participating out of frustration. The system would quickly collapse.

adolph 5y ago

The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this.

chimeracoder 5y ago
> The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this. They're not endangered in that they're free to leave, but it's not true that a gate agent is always present, despite what the MTA claims, so it's possible people would have been unable to enter if they are unable or unwilling to jump the turnstile. (In practice, there's almost always someone leaving the station/train, and they'd be able to open the emergency gate from the inside in a situation like this.)

gizmo686 5y ago

NYC Building code https://up.codes/viewer/new_york_city/nyc-building-code-2014/chapter/10/means-of-egress#1008 https://up.codes/viewer/new_york_city/nyc-building-code-2014... > Turnstiles or similar devices that restrict travel to one direction shall not be placed so as to obstruct any required means of egress. There are some exceptions. The type of turnstile pictured may be used for up to 50% of the required egress capacity, and must fail open (for egress) in event of power loss, as well as offer a manual override to allow for free egress. This style of turnstile can also not be counted for egress requirements when placed in an "accessible route". Additionally, > Where serving an occupant load greater than 300, each manually-operated turnstile and automatic turnstile that is not portable shall have a side-hinged swinging door which conforms to Section 1008.1 within 50 feet (15 240 mm).