PAth/nyc subway free transfer?

[theaveragejoe]

Also would that be legal ?

[TomG]

      AverageJoe, when you ask if that would be legal I’m not sure what exactly what you are referring to.  The states of New York and New Jersey received consent from the US Congress to form the Port Authority in 1921 so those states may need consent from Congress to set up the system I suggested.  I am not sure about that.  I am not sure if there are any state laws forbidding it, but if the two state governments were willing to undertake such a plan then they could change the laws.  I don’t know of anything in the states’ constitutions which would forbid such a plan.  The cities of New York and Newark leased the airports to the Port Authority, which means they entered into a contract with them.  In short I would say that the states would need consent from the US Congress, but I do not see that as being too difficult to get since the Congress already gave consent to form the PA.  Anything else the states would be in control of.

      Tom,

      PS, I duplicated my first post by accident.  I would be happy if one of them was deleted.

 

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

I'm still of the opinion that the logistics of it would be so tricky (and lead to political fights - Chris Christie and Cuomo having an argument would be quite the sight to see, especially if you throw Blooomberg or the more dynamic mayoral candidates like Quinn and Wiener into the mix).

 

Plus, isn't PA fare going to rise quicker than the MTA fare soon? It's going up to $2.75 in a couple years.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

MTA doesn'e even accept the Smartlink card (yet).

 

It's my understanding that MTA will not be developing an actual MTA-only card as part of their "smart card" program, forcing people to use a "smart" credit/debit card like a Mastercard Paypass as their "MetroCard" or purchase a prepaid Mastercard Paypass or similar card. That's a real stupid idea to force people to have a credit/debit card to pay their fare, so they should definitely work with Port on accepting Smartlink in addition to credit/debit smartcards. Not only that, but MTA riders who occasionally use PATH will not be happy that they can't use the MTA farecard on PATH (people use their Metros on PATH quite a lot including myself).

 

Once Smartlink is accepted by the MTA we can talk free transfers, even then it's not likely.

[GreatOne2k]

The Paypass program pilot did have free transfers between PATH and some NYC Transit bus and subway routes (from what I heard).

[Orion VII 4 Life]

The Paypass program pilot did have free transfers between PATH and some NYC Transit bus and subway routes (from what I heard).

That was before Smartlink and was IIRC a joint test between MTA Port and Mastercard. Port went the way of Smartlink, MTA continued using the Metrocard though now they seem to be going the route of accepting debit/credit cards such as Paypass only without there being a "new MetroCard" or Smartlink card (dedicated prepaid transit farecard) accepted in addition to the Paypass cards, which IMO is a very stupid idea. Yes, it's convenient to use your Visa Paypass or whatever as your MetroCard, but not everyone has or wants one. You can pick up a prepaid Paypass card in Walmart or wherever but some people just don't want to be burdoned with Visa, Mastercard or any other credit/debit cards. Best idea for the MTA and Port alike would be for MTA to accept and sell Smartlink.

[TomG]

      Bobtehpanda, I agree that working out such a plan could be “tricky.”  As to the PATH fare going up to $2.75 in a couple of years I have no knowledge of that.

      Orion, as to whether free transfers are likely or not I’m not even venturing a guess about that.

      Tom,

 

 

[TomG]

      This is a continuation of my earlier post about free transfers between PATH and NYCT.  It seems to me that from a purely economic point of view (that is considering overall costs and benefits only) the current system whereby there are no free transfers between PATH and NYCT services is arbitrary.  Non-arbitrary reasons for a lack of free transfers, from a purely economic point of view, would only be based on significant differences marginal costs, with marginal cost being equal to the cost that one more rider imposes or the differences of the fare elasticity of demand, with the group with a lower fare elasticity of demand having the higher combined fare.  Neither of these situations seems to be the reason for the lack of free transfers between PATH and NYCT.  For example consider two passengers one riding PATH from Jersey City to the World Trade Center and then transferring to the “R” train of the subway to continue on to Canal Street and the second passenger riding the subway’s “L” train from Williamsburg and transferring to the “R” train to continue on to Canal Street.  The passenger from Jersey City would pay a total of $4.75 for the trip while the passenger from Williamsburg would only pay $2.50, but it does not seem to me that there are significant differences in marginal cost or fare elasticity of demand to justify the passenger from New Jersey paying almost twice what the passenger from Brooklyn would pay.  Therefore I feel that from an economic point of view the difference in total fare is arbitrary.

      I believe that the arbitrary (from an economic point of view) lack of free transfers between PATH and NYCT tends to lead to less efficiency.  For example the lack of free transfers may discourage some people who reside in Hudson County from taking a preferred job that is located in New York City, but away from a PATH station and in a similar way discourage some people who reside in New York City from taking a preferred job that is located in Hudson County.  Also, such lack of transfers could result in some PATH riders walking to their destination in Manhattan instead of taking NYCT when their preferred action would be to take some NYCT service.  Further as mass transit and in particular mass rail transit is characterized by strong economies of scale it would seem to me that any additional monetary cost from additional PATH or NYCT riders would be minimal compared to what I see as an improvement in efficiency due to the implication of free transfers. 

      As to congestion it seems to me that most crowding occurs when trains head into the central business area of Manhattan during the morning rush hour and when trains leave the central business area during the evening rush hour.  It also appears to me that increases in ridership due to the free transfer problem would be least pronounced within these most crowded areas.  From my readings on the subject it seems that the fare elasticity of demand is lowest during the rush hours and somewhat higher during the off peak periods.  Fare elasticity of demand is a measurement of how strongly people respond to changes in fares.  Instituting free transfers would in effect be a reduction in fare for riders who use both PATH and NYCT.  A low fare elasticity of demand during rush hours as compared to the off peak would mean that the percentage increase in new riders, due to the reduction in fare would be greater during the off peak, when there is excess capacity, as compared to the rush hours when there is the most crowding.

      I do feel that free transfers would encourage some riders who are already going into the Manhattan Central business district to continue by PATH to New Jersey if they reside in New York City or continue to a part of Manhattan not well served by PATH if they reside in New Jersey.  However, it appears to me that these continued rides would be on trains that are somewhat less congested than trains that are headed into the central business area in the morning rush hour or headed out of the central business area in the evening rush hour.

      It is my understanding that prior to 1948 there were few if any free transfers between what could roughly be considered the ex-IRT, ex-BMT and ex-IND divisions of the New York City subway.  Imagine if free transfers were not instituted between these divisions and any that existed were eliminated.  In that case the base fare could have been kept lower and could now be lower than $2.50 however some riders would have to pay two fares.  Would that be preferable to the current situation of free transfers?  I see no fundamental differences, from an economic point of view, between offering free transfers between the subway’s divisions and offering free transfers between the subway and PATH.  I feel that if one is a good idea than both are and if one is a bad idea than both are.

      In the 1990’s one free transfer between buses or between buses and the subway were instituted.  Again I feel that if that was a good idea than free transfers between PATH and NYCT would be a good idea from a purely economic point of view and if free transfers between PATH and NYCT would not be a good idea than I would feel that a free transfer between buses the subway would not be a good idea.  As to PATH being a different agency than the NYCT I do not see that as an important difference, after all Westchester’s Beeline buses are run by a different agency than the NYCT and there are free transfers between Beeline buses and the subway.  Also Nassau’s NICE buses are run by a different agency than the NYCT and there are free transfers between NICE buses and the subway.

      Tom,

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

That was before Smartlink and was IIRC a joint test between MTA Port and Mastercard. Port went the way of Smartlink, MTA continued using the Metrocard though now they seem to be going the route of accepting debit/credit cards such as Paypass only without there being a "new MetroCard" or Smartlink card (dedicated prepaid transit farecard) accepted in addition to the Paypass cards, which IMO is a very stupid idea. Yes, it's convenient to use your Visa Paypass or whatever as your MetroCard, but not everyone has or wants one. You can pick up a prepaid Paypass card in Walmart or wherever but some people just don't want to be burdoned with Visa, Mastercard or any other credit/debit cards. Best idea for the MTA and Port alike would be for MTA to accept and sell Smartlink.

 

Not to mention, CTA implemented the exact same credit/debit thing, and their farecard for non-Visa/Mastercard users has lots of hidden fees and other sorts of ridiculous conditions.

 

      This is a continuation of my earlier post about free transfers between PATH and NYCT.  It seems to me that from a purely economic point of view (that is considering overall costs and benefits only) the current system whereby there are no free transfers between PATH and NYCT services is arbitrary.  Non-arbitrary reasons for a lack of free transfers, from a purely economic point of view, would only be based on significant differences marginal costs, with marginal cost being equal to the cost that one more rider imposes or the differences of the fare elasticity of demand, with the group with a lower fare elasticity of demand having the higher combined fare.  Neither of these situations seems to be the reason for the lack of free transfers between PATH and NYCT.  For example consider two passengers one riding PATH from Jersey City to the World Trade Center and then transferring to the “R” train of the subway to continue on to Canal Street and the second passenger riding the subway’s “L” train from Williamsburg and transferring to the “R” train to continue on to Canal Street.  The passenger from Jersey City would pay a total of $4.75 for the trip while the passenger from Williamsburg would only pay $2.50, but it does not seem to me that there are significant differences in marginal cost or fare elasticity of demand to justify the passenger from New Jersey paying almost twice what the passenger from Brooklyn would pay.  Therefore I feel that from an economic point of view the difference in total fare is arbitrary.

      I believe that the arbitrary (from an economic point of view) lack of free transfers between PATH and NYCT tends to lead to less efficiency.  For example the lack of free transfers may discourage some people who reside in Hudson County from taking a preferred job that is located in New York City, but away from a PATH station and in a similar way discourage some people who reside in New York City from taking a preferred job that is located in Hudson County.  Also, such lack of transfers could result in some PATH riders walking to their destination in Manhattan instead of taking NYCT when their preferred action would be to take some NYCT service.  Further as mass transit and in particular mass rail transit is characterized by strong economies of scale it would seem to me that any additional monetary cost from additional PATH or NYCT riders would be minimal compared to what I see as an improvement in efficiency due to the implication of free transfers. 

      As to congestion it seems to me that most crowding occurs when trains head into the central business area of Manhattan during the morning rush hour and when trains leave the central business area during the evening rush hour.  It also appears to me that increases in ridership due to the free transfer problem would be least pronounced within these most crowded areas.  From my readings on the subject it seems that the fare elasticity of demand is lowest during the rush hours and somewhat higher during the off peak periods.  Fare elasticity of demand is a measurement of how strongly people respond to changes in fares.  Instituting free transfers would in effect be a reduction in fare for riders who use both PATH and NYCT.  A low fare elasticity of demand during rush hours as compared to the off peak would mean that the percentage increase in new riders, due to the reduction in fare would be greater during the off peak, when there is excess capacity, as compared to the rush hours when there is the most crowding.

      I do feel that free transfers would encourage some riders who are already going into the Manhattan Central business district to continue by PATH to New Jersey if they reside in New York City or continue to a part of Manhattan not well served by PATH if they reside in New Jersey.  However, it appears to me that these continued rides would be on trains that are somewhat less congested than trains that are headed into the central business area in the morning rush hour or headed out of the central business area in the evening rush hour.

      It is my understanding that prior to 1948 there were few if any free transfers between what could roughly be considered the ex-IRT, ex-BMT and ex-IND divisions of the New York City subway.  Imagine if free transfers were not instituted between these divisions and any that existed were eliminated.  In that case the base fare could have been kept lower and could now be lower than $2.50 however some riders would have to pay two fares.  Would that be preferable to the current situation of free transfers?  I see no fundamental differences, from an economic point of view, between offering free transfers between the subway’s divisions and offering free transfers between the subway and PATH.  I feel that if one is a good idea than both are and if one is a bad idea than both are.

      In the 1990’s one free transfer between buses or between buses and the subway were instituted.  Again I feel that if that was a good idea than free transfers between PATH and NYCT would be a good idea from a purely economic point of view and if free transfers between PATH and NYCT would not be a good idea than I would feel that a free transfer between buses the subway would not be a good idea.  As to PATH being a different agency than the NYCT I do not see that as an important difference, after all Westchester’s Beeline buses are run by a different agency than the NYCT and there are free transfers between Beeline buses and the subway.  Also Nassau’s NICE buses are run by a different agency than the NYCT and there are free transfers between NICE buses and the subway.

      Tom,

 

Your comparisons are erroneous, for multiple reasons. First of all, the MTA bus/subway free-transfer was instituted not primarily because of the economic benefits it would bring to the region, but because the MTA was looking to burn through its cash in a way that did not involve lowering the fare - when the free transfer was instituted, the MTA was running a billion-dollar surplus. The average fare paid by a rider is now lower than it was in the 70s, adjusted for inflation. This leads to today's situation, where the MTA habitually runs deficits and then has to increase the base fare to make up for the losses.

 

Second of all, NICE has a free transfer because it was formerly MTA-run. In addition, both NICE and Bee-Line run within the MTA's service region, and counties in those areas pay a set of dedicated taxes to the MTA. Their free transfer is not "free."

 

Third of all, your interpretation based on marginal costs is based on two fallacious assumptions - one, that there is spare capacity to go around, and two, the magnitude of such change. PATH and MTA are both at capacity during the peak - PATH is currently trying to install a new signalling system to allow for more capacity, but even that increase will be limited. Hundreds of thousands a day use the PATH system to enter Manhattan, and thousands, if not tens of thousands more, would join them if a free transfer was adopted. Your assumption based on marginal costs is based on the costs of a single rider - the problem is that such a change would induce thousands of trips. An increase in trips of that amount would necessitate buying new train cars to provide more service than is currently offered (not possible due to track constraints), hiring new drivers, and increase maintenance costs due to increased wear and tear on both trains and stations. The same would apply to an already cash-strapped MTA. Not only that, but both agencies would see losses in the millions per year, and both can barely balance their budgets.

 

Finally, the impact of such a transfer would be extremely negative on both agencies' finances. Tolls on PA bridges and fares on PATH are slated to rise due to the Port Authority's huge capital project needs - a free transfer would negatively impact revenues and require increasing tolls and fares yet again. In addition, the MTA would see virtually no benefits from a free transfer - trains would be more crowded, necessitating more service and decreasing safety on crowded platforms. In addition, the logistics of free transfers within the MTA region are different - even if businesses or residents are enticed to move, they would stay within the MTA region, thus paying the dedicated taxes that keep the agency afloat. A free transfer would encourage people and businesses to move to New Jersey, where the dedicated taxes are not paid - the MTA would thus suffer from a huge loss in income. Riders would then be asked to cover the difference, and these riders overwhelmingly live in New York. Asking New Yorkers to subsidize a benefit for New Jersey is completely inappropriate.

 

In summation, you underestimate the costs to both MTA and PATH. Unless Hudson County would like to start paying the MTA's set of dedicated taxes as well, there should be no free transfer between the two agencies.

[TomG]

      Panda, I stand by my post.  If free transfers make economic sense in the cases that I mentioned then free transfers would also make economic sense between PATH and NYCT.  If they don’t make economic sense between PATH and NYCT then we would be better off doing away with them in the other cases I mentioned.  As to congestion I dealt with that in my last post, (elasticity of demand is very low during the rush hours in the direction of heavy traffic).  As to new cars and trains, there is excess capacity during most non-rush hour times and more trains would benefit current riders who would not use the free transfer.  As to added costs I dealt with that in my first post to this thread.  However, thank you for your comment.

      Tom,

[bobtehpanda]

      Panda, I stand by my post.  If free transfers make economic sense in the cases that I mentioned then free transfers would also make economic sense between PATH and NYCT.  If they don’t make economic sense between PATH and NYCT then we would be better off doing away with them in the other cases I mentioned.  As to congestion I dealt with that in my last post, (elasticity of demand is very low during the rush hours in the direction of heavy traffic).  As to new cars and trains, there is excess capacity during most non-rush hour times and more trains would benefit current riders who would not use the free transfer.  As to added costs I dealt with that in my first post to this thread.  However, thank you for your comment.

      Tom,

 

They only make economic sense because everybody that has a transfer to the subway pays the MTA dedicated taxes. If Hudson County were to pay these taxes as well, then they would be more than welcome to introduce a free transfer.

[RookiePhenom]

Not to mention, CTA implemented the exact same credit/debit thing, and their farecard for non-Visa/Mastercard users has lots of hidden fees and other sorts of ridiculous conditions.

 

 

For starters: CTA and PACE (in Chicago) are starting to work towards a contactless fare card that will eventually become the groundwork for the Universal FareCard system that'll be used for the aforementioned and our commuter rail, Metra. 

 

The Credit/Debit part, even though you could use it, is an optional component. The problem that many media folk here (and those who cry wolf) is that it will screw over the poor or at the very least, get jacked because of the fees. The fallacy with that is that it only applies to the debit card side of things, if you use your pass as a debit card -- almost similar to a gift card and their BS fees.

 

Otherwise, the farecard will work in tandem as before: If you register your card to your credit/bank card, it'll reload your fares to when you need it.

 

The one issue that we seem to face is that both transit agencies (and Metra is still in the 18th century with fare payment) is that there are multiple fare structures (Reduced, student, UPASS - CTA, Campus Connection -- Pace, Premium), that our systems have to go through rigorous testing. This has been the process for about 6 months (or more). Implementation was supposed to start in June, but now we're looking at August for a rollout.

 

As a TA employee, this has caused a lot of awkward (read: Angry) moments with the drivers of the other agency because my farecard (works for both) expired in June and won't get another pass until Ventra comes out.

 

So, how does that relate to you good folks on the East Coast: while I'm not familiar with NJ's or PATH's form of fares, I do know that with any fare restructuring involving the overhaul of cards and passes, it's a very good idea to make sure that all of those boards involved are financially, politically, and philosophically onboard. The reason why Metra still hasn't gotten on the ball yet is because they're a hot mess (involving a 18th century fare structure and other political malarkey); however, they are mandated by 1/1/2015 to get onboard. 

 

You guys have that opportunity to make it happen, or at least rollout through the MTA first. Then expand to the other side of the Hudson. If that includes multi-system transfers, they have to agree on the pricing, and the reimbursement (because you lose money on some linked trips).

[theaveragejoe]

      AverageJoe, when you ask if that would be legal I’m not sure what exactly what you are referring to.  The states of New York and New Jersey received consent from the US Congress to form the Port Authority in 1921 so those states may need consent from Congress to set up the system I suggested.  I am not sure about that.  I am not sure if there are any state laws forbidding it, but if the two state governments were willing to undertake such a plan then they could change the laws.  I don’t know of anything in the states’ constitutions which would forbid such a plan.  The cities of New York and Newark leased the airports to the Port Authority, which means they entered into a contract with them.  In short I would say that the states would need consent from the US Congress, but I do not see that as being too difficult to get since the Congress already gave consent to form the PA.  Anything else the states would be in control of.

      Tom,

      PS, I duplicated my first post by accident.  I would be happy if one of them was deleted.

 

 

Both the state of New Jersey and New York provide no funding for operations at PANYNJ as all of those funds come from fares, tolls, rents, fees. I only asked would it even be legal for the states to provide operations funding for PANYNJ.

[bobtehpanda]

For starters: CTA and PACE (in Chicago) are starting to work towards a contactless fare card that will eventually become the groundwork for the Universal FareCard system that'll be used for the aforementioned and our commuter rail, Metra. 

 

The Credit/Debit part, even though you could use it, is an optional component. The problem that many media folk here (and those who cry wolf) is that it will screw over the poor or at the very least, get jacked because of the fees. The fallacy with that is that it only applies to the debit card side of things, if you use your pass as a debit card -- almost similar to a gift card and their BS fees.

 

Otherwise, the farecard will work in tandem as before: If you register your card to your credit/bank card, it'll reload your fares to when you need it.

 

The one issue that we seem to face is that both transit agencies (and Metra is still in the 18th century with fare payment) is that there are multiple fare structures (Reduced, student, UPASS - CTA, Campus Connection -- Pace, Premium), that our systems have to go through rigorous testing. This has been the process for about 6 months (or more). Implementation was supposed to start in June, but now we're looking at August for a rollout.

 

As a TA employee, this has caused a lot of awkward (read: Angry) moments with the drivers of the other agency because my farecard (works for both) expired in June and won't get another pass until Ventra comes out.

 

So, how does that relate to you good folks on the East Coast: while I'm not familiar with NJ's or PATH's form of fares, I do know that with any fare restructuring involving the overhaul of cards and passes, it's a very good idea to make sure that all of those boards involved are financially, politically, and philosophically onboard. The reason why Metra still hasn't gotten on the ball yet is because they're a hot mess (involving a 18th century fare structure and other political malarkey); however, they are mandated by 1/1/2015 to get onboard. 

 

You guys have that opportunity to make it happen, or at least rollout through the MTA first. Then expand to the other side of the Hudson. If that includes multi-system transfers, they have to agree on the pricing, and the reimbursement (because you lose money on some linked trips).

 

As I understand it, there was a fee for calling for customer service with the Ventra card - that may or may not have been scrapped under the outcry. At the very least, that bit is ridiculous.

 

MTA plans to adopt a very similar card system, which could be worrying. Most agencies, at the very least, accept our local Metrocard as payment and provide free transfers to other Metrocard-accepting services. The only big dogs left to convert, besides some far-flung suburban bus systems, are NJT, Metro-North, LIRR, and PATH.

 

The funny thing about converting PATH to a new farecard is that it already has a smartcard, and it was hoping to cooperate with the MTA and other regional entities on use of this existing technology. (An agency willing to be proactive and helpful in New York is quite the rare sight.) Unfortunately, no one bit, and the PATH is the only transit system that accepts these cards, besides the people movers to the airport.

 

LIRR, Metro-North, and NJT are complicated. NJT not only has an extremely byzantine fare structure and route system for its buses, but also covers all of New Jersey, including South Jersey. Getting them to comply would probably mean bringing Philly operators into the fold as well.

 

Metro-North runs all the way to New Haven, and is more like an intercity railroad, so that's also quite complicated to manage.

 

LIRR just hates cooperating with anybody (so much that Amtrak is spending billions of dollars simply to avoid having to deal with negotiating with LIRR operators in an interlocking). Their specific fare structure is so anti-city that there's no way they would want to integrate fares for the benefit of those people.

 

That basically sums up transit fare challenges these days.

[RookiePhenom]

As I understand it, there was a fee for calling for customer service with the Ventra card - that may or may not have been scrapped under the outcry. At the very least, that bit is ridiculous.

 

The official answer is no, but that was because of the public outcry over the option debit feature.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

Both the state of New Jersey and New York provide no funding for operations at PANYNJ as all of those funds come from fares, tolls, rents, fees. I only asked would it even be legal for the states to provide operations funding for PANYNJ.

I know one thing, one side will bitch about their money going to the other state and vice-versa.