Give riders a break and don't raise the fares right now. In announcing the decision to put off hte fare hike, Foye cited the power shift in Washington, where Democrats will take control of the White House and all of Congress. This week, Joe Biden will become president, and Chuck Schumer will be the new Senate majority leader. Open in Our App. Generally speaking, one goal of a well-run public transit system in a heavily populated cit is to incentivize transit usage.
The only way for millions of New Yorkers to move through the city each day efficiently is via high-capacity,, rail, and the more riders the better. Unlimited Metrocards were a revelation for New York City and one that unlocked the transit system for millions. For a one-time upfront fee each month or week , potential riders could swipe as many times as they wanted, and taking short trips — whether by bus or train — became second nature.
It was, in fact, best to maximize monthly swipes to get a better deal. At a time when the MTA needs to attract riders to shore up its finances and help avoid crushing gridlock on city streets, doing away with time-based incentives is foolhardy. Currently, the breakeven point for a day Metrocard is a shade over 46 rides and for a 7-day card, 12 trips. This is generally a high bar to clear when compared with international norms.
Most international transit systems heavily incentivize time-based passes — in Stockholm, for instance, the break-even point for a day pass is 26 rides and a day Navigo pass in Paris pays for itself after the 39th trip. So the MTA already over-burdens users of time-based compared with international peer systems. Meanwhile, as OMNY completes its system-wide rollout in a few days, the MTA should look to further incentivize transit while making the system more accessible through fare capping.
In essence, fare capping means that after a certain number of rides per time period — whether it be day, week or month — a rider no longer pays for additional trips. The MTA has yet to determine if they will implement fare capping with OMNY, but this, rather than the elimination of time-based passes, is the policy discussion worth having. So why is the MTA considering a shift in fare policy that would disincentivize riders while shifting away from international norms?
It would be a 10 cent decrease. That is why I believe the day commuter — these are people who depend on the mass transit system to get to work as opposed to the casual daily rider that buys an off-peak ticket or to go to a show or restaurant, the doctor or has a trial in New York City.
The other thing I want to say is that right now, I am somewhat in favor of eliminating the time based passes because I believe there is a lot of fraud associated with them…I would really like to see the 7-day time based fares on ZIP code or something. Who is purchasing those 7-day time-based passes? Because again, I am not here to hurt the people who rely on the system the most.
Again, my goal is not to see the base fare increase for both the bus and subway riders and also for those people who depend the most on commuter rail, those monthly pass holders.
Again, the people who depend on the system the most should be held harmless, and the people that are casual riders who use the system…. My thing is for those casual people, they can probably absorb a little bit more. So much of what Schwartz said makes no sense, and if you can make heads or tails of these arguments, more power to you. If the MTA is truly considering eliminating these cards, they owe it to the public to explain why, and Schwartz owes it to the public to present evidence of this fraud.
Otherwise, the MTA should leave well enough alone and make these time-based cards more readily affordable for everyone rather than cutting them out entirely. Pretty much every other transit authority in the world sees time-based passes as a way to get revenue up front and so offer even more options such as short-visit-friendly three-day passes and annual passes where in return for a deeper discount, commuters effectively make an interest-free loan to the transit authority that it gradually pays back over the year.
Why does New York always have to be different? If for no other reason ie. If I remember correctly, there are passes like this in Germany eg. HVV in Hamburg that employ such a scheme to offer steep discounts on monthly passes.
Was that far enough? If it gets passed, it would be a pretty nice racket for the City. Force people to stay home and rely on delivery services and then charge them a tax on anything they have delivered.
I fully agree on time-based passes, such as unlimited riding for two or three hours. It would eliminate the problem of double fares which highly discourage transit use and would encourage the combining of running errands, while insuring that those coming and going to work pay twice.
Eliminating passes and raising fares without addressing the double fare issue poses a hardship, and is unfair. People who need three buses or a bus to a train to a bus to complete their trip should not be penalized with a double fare each way.
The only rationale to eliminate passes is if you want to discourage ridership by forcing people to walk for short trips so you can run less service and save money that way.
What next, go back to the dark ages and eliminate bus subway transfers? What is new? It is time for the MTA to consider other cost savings. As such, it needs to be cut by billions. Priority should given to safety and state of good repair as opposed to system expansion projects. NYC news never sleeps. Get the Gothamist Daily newsletter and don't miss a moment.
Terms By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms. Do you know the scoop? Comment below or Send us a Tip. NNYC Love. We rely on your support to make local news available to all. Donate Now.
0コメント