Jump to content

Questions about fare zones


FreekyFreezer

Recommended Posts


Why did the New York City Transit never have any fare zones like in countless cities in Europe, although it's an unbelievably large network? Wouldn't that boost revenue?

 

Most of the outskirts of the city are poorer, but it still makes no sense. $2.50 is insanely cheap for a ride from Jamaica to Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did the New York City Transit never have any fare zones like in countless cities in Europe, although it's an unbelievably large network? Wouldn't that boost revenue?

 

 

Most of the outskirts of the city are poorer, but it still makes no sense. $2.50 is insanely cheap for a ride from Jamaica to Manhattan.

 

The primary reason the subway has always had a flat fare is because the subway was developed, and still exists, for the purpose of allowing people to decamp from Manhattan. Manhattan used to be shockingly dense; prior to the streetcar, the city didn't really exist north of Wall St. Prior to the els, the city didn't exist north of 42nd St. Even 100 years ago, with the building of all the East and Harlem River bridges, Manhattan had double the population it has today, and most of the high-rises we see around the city didn't exist back then. As a result, Manhattan was dangerously dense, to the point where it constituted a public health issue at the time due to cramped living conditions. You couldn't build better housing for poor people with bigger rooms, because the land value was so high that building above a certain point wasn't economical unless you were very rich. You can see this in the tenements that still sort of exist in the LES and Chinatown; very small, cramped rooms, over five people to an apartment, and multiple apartments on the same floor sharing a single bathroom.

 

The building of the East River bridges with nonexistent tolls helped bind the city together and allowed the first generation of poor immigrants, the Jews and Italians of the LES, to decamp to Williamsburg and the rest of Brooklyn. Likewise, the subway allowed for the middle and poor classes to move out into more spacious, sanitary living conditions in the five boroughs; if you look at pictures of the subway being developed, you'll see that the subway when built often snaked through farmland or small little towns, and the subway allowed the masses to buy the new developments being built in this area, because they could afford both the housing and the cheap transportation.

 

The subway's low fare reflects its purpose; it is essentially a kind of subsidy that allows middle and working-class people to actually live within the city limits and still have a job. To get rid of the flat fare would be to declare the city as a bastion of the rich, and would also probably destroy the retail and service economy that we've built up once no one making below 100 grand a year can afford both the housing and transportation costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary reason the subway has always had a flat fare is because the subway was developed, and still exists, for the purpose of allowing people to decamp from Manhattan. Manhattan used to be shockingly dense; prior to the streetcar, the city didn't really exist north of Wall St. Prior to the els, the city didn't exist north of 42nd St. Even 100 years ago, with the building of all the East and Harlem River bridges, Manhattan had double the population it has today, and most of the high-rises we see around the city didn't exist back then. As a result, Manhattan was dangerously dense, to the point where it constituted a public health issue at the time due to cramped living conditions. You couldn't build better housing for poor people with bigger rooms, because the land value was so high that building above a certain point wasn't economical unless you were very rich. You can see this in the tenements that still sort of exist in the LES and Chinatown; very small, cramped rooms, over five people to an apartment, and multiple apartments on the same floor sharing a single bathroom.

 

The building of the East River bridges with nonexistent tolls helped bind the city together and allowed the first generation of poor immigrants, the Jews and Italians of the LES, to decamp to Williamsburg and the rest of Brooklyn. Likewise, the subway allowed for the middle and poor classes to move out into more spacious, sanitary living conditions in the five boroughs; if you look at pictures of the subway being developed, you'll see that the subway when built often snaked through farmland or small little towns, and the subway allowed the masses to buy the new developments being built in this area, because they could afford both the housing and the cheap transportation.

 

The subway's low fare reflects its purpose; it is essentially a kind of subsidy that allows middle and working-class people to actually live within the city limits and still have a job. To get rid of the flat fare would be to declare the city as a bastion of the rich, and would also probably destroy the retail and service economy that we've built up once no one making below 100 grand a year can afford both the housing and transportation costs.

Great point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of transportation is to move people from one place to another and to do so at reasonable prices.  The subway is just that: a subway. It is not a commuter train like Metro-North or the LIRR, so there should not be any fare zones.  Given how many people in NYC don't have cars and rely on public transportation, having zoned fares would deter people from using public transportation and it would lead to chaos.  You have a lot of people who currently use public transportation because of its ease and because it's cheaper than driving in.  If transportation becomes too expensive then you deter ridership.  Why would anyone want to use public transportation if they could drive in and do so paying less money?

 

You also would hurt the poor because they rely heavily on the subways and local buses in the outer boroughs, moreso than people with more economic means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Issues I see with zone based fares in NY.

 

#1. It might cause the system to loose money. Aside from installing exit fare reading systems, the changes to the fare system could result in more people paying a lower fare, reducing the system's income.

 

#2. It would mess up our free transfer polices to surface transit. The Transit authority has long kept to a rule that replacement services are entitled to a free transfer. This is mostly in areas where an El has been dismantled. Best case of note is the connection between the B42 bus and the L at Rockaway Parkway station. This is also why the TA implement the out of system walking transfers between 59th/Lexington and 63rd/Lexington and between 45th rd Courthouse Sq and Court Sq/23rd-Ely (replaced by an in-system transfer and complex renamed to just Court Square) in 2001, after the F train was shifted to 63rd and the V coming online shook up that area of the subway.

 

#3. Would put extra strain on certain lines (IE, the G) from people trying to keep their fares down. 

 

 

Zone based systems on heavy rail in America are only used on multiple jurisdictional systems. BART in the San Francisco Bay Area uses it, but the system passes through four different counties at the moment (City and County of San Fransisco, Alameda County, San Mateo County and Contra Costa County) and is in the process of adding a fifth (Santa Clara County).

 

Washington Metro uses it and that is split between two states and the Federal District, and the Federal Government is directly invovled as they have the final say in everything in DC.

 

All other heavy rail systems use flat fares. Some lower than NYC's, some higher. 

 

As I discussed in a recent post in another thread, the issue here is funding, figuring out who is responsible for what costs. In BART's case, between the member counties of the Transit District the operates the network. In DC's case, between the states of Maryland and Virginia, The District's local government itself and the Federal Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.