Unlimited MetroCards will reach $168 by 2023

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@MVH... You sure as hell have resentment for those of us who work hard, as if we should feel guilty, which is ridiculous. Life is what you make of your opportunities and the bus boy obviously didn't make the best of his, but that's his fault, not ours.

[MHV9218]

Not how it works.......

[AndrewJC]

It's not a tirade, it's about what's fair. If I'm a busboy who makes $20,000 a year and have has to commute in from the Rockaways with an Unlimited card, I'm devoting (with these numbers) more than 10% of my yearly income to transit. If I'm a professional on the UES making $200,000 a year and commuting downtown to my job in Midtown with two rides per work day, I'm devoting .6% of my yearly income to transit. How is that anywhere near fair? 

 

As for Metro North, LIRR, express buses: I just don't support flat rates. Fares should be income-based.

 

I'm not sure what the Rockaways or UES have to do with your example. There are people of all income levels traveling to and from all parts of the city.

 

Adjusting the actual fare based on income is impractical, but I would strongly advocate for transit vouchers to be distributed to the poor to offset some of the cost of riding the subway and bus.

 

Jesus, every time we start talking about the fare this old argument comes up.

 

A flat fare is unfair, but what would you have replace it? A zoned fare? That's even worse for outer-borough middle class residents.

 

Not at all! Any intelligently designed zone system would grant the lowest fares (by far) to trips (and especially off-peak trips) that don't enter the CBD. Trips that enter the CBD would be significantly more expensive, especially during rush hours.

 

Think about who tends to rely the most on outer borough trips that don't enter the Manhattan CBD. Now think about who tends to hold 9-to-5 jobs in the Manhattan CBD. Suddenly it doesn't seem so regressive anymore, does it.

 

On top of that, once a reasonable zone system is in place, it can be applied to the commuter railroads as well. To give one example, why should a rail-based trip from Fordham Plaza to Grand Central cost so much more than a rail-based trip from Fordham/Jerome to Grand Central, merely because those two rail lines happen to be operated by different agencies? Even worse, why should someone who has an unlimited pass valid for trips on one agency's system have to pay the full fare for an occasional trip on the other agency's system? Fordham Plaza to Grand Central and Fordham/Jerome to Grand Central should have a uniform fare and a common fare medium. Marble Hill to Grand Central (via Metro-North) and Marble Hill to Times Square (via 1 train) should have a uniform fare and a common fare medium. Sutphin/Archer to Penn via E train and Sutphin/Archer to Penn via LIRR should have a uniform fare and a common fare medium (and the fare from Sutphin/Archer to Atlantic Terminal via LIRR should be significantly lower, since it doesn't enter the Manhattan CBD).

 

Sounds good, no?

 

As for subsidizing the poor, that should be external to the basic fare structure, since there are plenty of wealthy people who travel long distances and plenty of poor people who travel short distances. As I proposed to MHV9218, provide the poor with need-based vouchers to reduce their out-of-pocket transit expenses.

[MHV9218]

I'm not sure what the Rockaways or UES have to do with your example. There are people of all income levels traveling to and from all parts of the city.

 

Adjusting the actual fare based on income is impractical, but I would strongly advocate for transit vouchers to be distributed to the poor to offset some of the cost of riding the subway and bus.

 

There are indeed people of all income levels traveling to and from all parts of the city, but the majority of commuters within the city (I'll ignore the NJ/CT commuters for now) come from outer boroughs to work in Manhattan (hence rush hour service is structured inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon). Manhattan is far and away the wealthiest borough, and one of the common privileges of wealth is the ability to live near one's work place. The end point is that you've got many low-income individuals who commute long distances from the outer boroughs to Manhattan forced to pay for excruciatingly expensive unlimited cards while many of the higher-income individuals commuting within Manhattan can travel on two trips a day. Those who can afford to spend the most on transit spend the least, and those who can afford the least spend the most.

[QM1to6Ave]

Manhattan is far and away the wealthiest borough, and one of the common privileges of wealth is the ability to live near one's work place. The end point is that you've got many low-income individuals who commute long distances from the outer boroughs to Manhattan forced to pay for excruciatingly expensive unlimited cards while many of the higher-income individuals commuting within Manhattan can travel on two trips a day. 

I'm confused. Everyone that travels to and from their place of work each work day must, by definition, travel on two trips a day. If a low-income person is traveling to and from work, they will pay $5 total, just like the richest person on the UES traveling a few stops on the 6 train going to and from work. If your job requires you to take more than 2 trips per day, e.g. messenger, that is a totally separate story.

 

Now a low income person traveling for 2 hours per day instead of 40 minutes is losing the value they could earn in that extra time, but just in terms of how much they pay for transit, everyone pays the same per ride. Am I missing something here? Plus, the farther you travel on $2.50, the better the value is as you are paying less per mile traveled. 

[MHV9218]

I'm confused. Everyone that travels to and from their place of work each work day must, by definition, travel on two trips a day. If a low-income person is traveling to and from work, they will pay $5 total, just like the richest person on the UES traveling a few stops on the 6 train going to and from work. If your job requires you to take more than 2 trips per day, e.g. messenger, that is a totally separate story.

 

Now a low income person traveling for 2 hours per day instead of 40 minutes is losing the value they could earn in that extra time, but just in terms of how much they pay for transit, everyone pays the same per ride. Am I missing something here? Plus, the farther you travel on $2.50, the better the value is as you are paying less per mile traveled. 

 

Well, obviously, there are some commutes where you can pay $5 to go to and from work. But there are many commutes (those that require Unlimited Metrocards, often) where you're traveling to the bus to the bus to the train to the bus etc., etc. And those more complex commutes are rarely within Manhattan, but instead in outer boroughs on the way to Manhattan, paid for by people who cannot afford them as easily as wealthier Manhattan residents could. 

 

The main point, anyway, is that it's easier to afford any Unlimited card if you make $200k per year versus $20k, and yet for some reason the cost is the exact same for each person.

[qjtransitmaster]

$45 for a weekly for the local bus and subway is insane.  I pay $55 a week for the express bus now, so that would probably be a good $75 - 80 a week by that time, not to mention what MetroNorth would cost.

Dude you want wallet RAPE try WMATA for a week and being a DC commuter compared to that $55 a week is a steal. I dondon't think you know what it's like to have your wallet RAPED

[trainfan22]

What city are you in?  NY traffic have this type of traffic already.  Go take Cross-Bronx Expressway in the morning, FDR entering Brooklyn Bridge, BQE mid-day, Gowanus morning rush, LIE day light, Flatbush Avenue in downtown Brooklyn, the list goes on.

I'm in NYC, but from reading other forums [non transit] makes it seem like traffic is far worse in those cities I mentioned.

 

NYC traffic seems minor in comparison, only traffic that's really bad in the tri state area IMO is the NYC - Jersey crossings, mainly the tunnels and the GWB. The Staten Island crossings seem to be OK most of the time, but the Gothles Bridge can be pretty rough sometimes.

 

I got caught in most of those traffic settings you mentioned and they wasn't that bad compared to the Manhattan - Jersey crossings.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm in NYC, but from reading other forums [non transit] makes it seem like traffic is far worse in those cities I mentioned.

 

NYC traffic seems minor in comparison, only traffic that's really bad in the tri state area IMO is the NYC - Jersey crossings, mainly the tunnels and the GWB. The Staten Island crossings seem to be OK most of the time, but the Gothles Bridge can be pretty rough sometimes.

 

I got caught in most of those traffic settings you mentioned and they wasn't that bad compared to the Manhattan - Jersey crossings.

I don't know what Staten Island you're talking about but the crossings are not all that great there either.

 

Dude you want wallet RAPE try WMATA for a week and being a DC commuter compared to that $55 a week is a steal. I dondon't think you know what it's like to have your wallet RAPED

NYC is a pedestrian city so transportation should be cheaper to encourage usage.  DC less so save the Downtown area.

[bobtehpanda]

I'm in NYC, but from reading other forums [non transit] makes it seem like traffic is far worse in those cities I mentioned.

 

NYC traffic seems minor in comparison, only traffic that's really bad in the tri state area IMO is the NYC - Jersey crossings, mainly the tunnels and the GWB. The Staten Island crossings seem to be OK most of the time, but the Gothles Bridge can be pretty rough sometimes.

 

I got caught in most of those traffic settings you mentioned and they wasn't that bad compared to the Manhattan - Jersey crossings.

 

It depends on where and when. Jersey crossings are by far the worst (because the Lincoln and Holland aren't very wide). However, areas that can get crazy during the day are the BQE between the East River bridges and the LIE, the GCP between the BQE and the LIE (especially around LaGuardia, which is why I don't think the Q70 is going to do very well), the LIE between the BQE and College Point Blvd, and the Cross Island from Throgs Neck to the Belt/JFK. I was once in continual bumper to bumper traffic for 4 hours going from the Manhattan Bridge to the BQE to the LIE to Main St. It can get pretty bad at times.

 

Granted, this is no Boston Central Artery, but the problem is that since the highway system is usually operating at capacity, it only takes a car accident or poorly timed brakes to throw the whole thing into a clusterf***, which happens fairly often.

[Q19Astoria21St]

They just wanna keep our pockets empty. MTA got money to pay they debts. By then I should have a car and won't have to worry about spending 7.50 for a two way

[bobtehpanda]

NYC is a pedestrian city so transportation should be cheaper to encourage usage.  DC less so save the Downtown area.

 

The flip side of this argument is that the MTA offers so much compared to the rest of the country that this is a relative bargain. (I don't agree with this view, just playing devil's advocate.)

 

Nothing will happen until we can stanch the long-term deficit regarding future MTA obligations, because those are a growing, expensive chunk of the budget. (Debt service, pensions, etc.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The flip side of this argument is that the MTA offers so much compared to the rest of the country that this is a relative bargain. (I don't agree with this view, just playing devil's advocate.)

 

Nothing will happen until we can stanch the long-term deficit regarding future MTA obligations, because those are a growing, expensive chunk of the budget. (Debt service, pensions, etc.)

No question about it and RTO Man or whatever his name is had the nerve to tell me that I don't need to worry about what his union needs, but either they're going to make concessions or we'll become another Detroit.  It's not just the with the pension problems and other costs that they can't control.  It's the teachers, the police, firefighters and so on and everyone thinks they're entitled to their piece of the pie.  I don't disagree that they aren't, but you there simply isn't enough money to go around for everyone and you already have enough middle class New Yorkers fleeing the city in droves, so the question is who is going to be left here to tax if you continue to have these out of control pensions and healthcare costs for city workers, workers and the like?

[QM1to6Ave]

Well, obviously, there are some commutes where you can pay $5 to go to and from work. But there are many commutes (those that require Unlimited Metrocards, often) where you're traveling to the bus to the bus to the train to the bus etc., etc. And those more complex commutes are rarely within Manhattan, but instead in outer boroughs on the way to Manhattan, paid for by people who cannot afford them as easily as wealthier Manhattan residents could. 

 

The main point, anyway, is that it's easier to afford any Unlimited card if you make $200k per year versus $20k, and yet for some reason the cost is the exact same for each person.

gotcha, I see your point

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, obviously, there are some commutes where you can pay $5 to go to and from work. But there are many commutes (those that require Unlimited Metrocards, often) where you're traveling to the bus to the bus to the train to the bus etc., etc. And those more complex commutes are rarely within Manhattan, but instead in outer boroughs on the way to Manhattan, paid for by people who cannot afford them as easily as wealthier Manhattan residents could. 

 

The main point, anyway, is that it's easier to afford any Unlimited card if you make $200k per year versus $20k, and yet for some reason the cost is the exact same for each person.

And with that idea then, someone who makes $200k a year should have EVERYTHING that they buy based on their income, so in other words, all goods and services that they receive should be inflated just because they earn more than the next guy.  That means that if I go to the store, instead of paying $4.99 for organic milk, I get to pay $7.99 because I have a higher salary than the bus boy to make things "even". That's completely ridiculous.  By that notion, there is no point in people busting their @ss to make more money because they could just be bus boys and let someone else pay for their laziness and misfortunes.

[qjtransitmaster]

It depends on where and when. Jersey crossings are by far the worst (because the Lincoln and Holland aren't very wide). However, areas that can get crazy during the day are the BQE between the East River bridges and the LIE, the GCP between the BQE and the LIE (especially around LaGuardia, which is why I don't think the Q70 is going to do very well), the LIE between the BQE and College Point Blvd, and the Cross Island from Throgs Neck to the Belt/JFK. I was once in continual bumper to bumper traffic for 4 hours going from the Manhattan Bridge to the BQE to the LIE to Main St. It can get pretty bad at times.

 

Granted, this is no Boston Central Artery, but the problem is that since the highway system is usually operating at capacity, it only takes a car accident or poorly timed brakes to throw the whole thing into a clusterf***, which happens fairly often.

Traffic that has nothing to do with Q70's route at all try again. Q70 can skip GCP via runway drive and Astoria Blvd.

[arthurone]

i don't like any price hiking, but this is not that rediculous if you do the math, assuming 2~3% annual inflation rate, if you conpound it for the next 10 yrs it'll get you up to ~$150 anyway, in other words, you're paying that much now if you use that time's $$$, don't forget the FED is still printing and $$$ will get cheaper faster than that. 

[MHV9218]

And with that idea then, someone who makes $200k a year should have EVERYTHING that they buy based on their income, so in other words, all goods and services that they receive should be inflated just because they earn more than the next guy.  That means that if I go to the store, instead of paying $4.99 for organic milk, I get to pay $7.99 because I have a higher salary than the bus boy to make things "even". 

 

Am I supposed to find something wrong with that?

 

 

 

By that notion, there is no point in people busting their @ss to make more money because they could just be bus boys and let someone else pay for their laziness and misfortunes.

 

People are not poor by fault. No busboy is an inherently less talented person that you are. Less educated, maybe, but that's because s/he had fewer opportunities than you did. When you stop blaming those worse-off than you as if poverty is their 'fault,' you'll get a lot further in life.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Am I supposed to find something wrong with that?

 

 

People are poor by fault. No busboy is an inherently less talented person that you are. Less educated, maybe, but that's because s/he had fewer opportunities than you did in life. When you stop blaming those worse-off than you as if poverty is their 'fault,' you'll get a lot further in life.

Of course you wouldn't because you're perfectly fine with taking from hard working professionals.

 

Did it ever dawn on you that successful people MAKE more opportunities for themselves?  No one is going to give you anything.  You have to go out there and get it.

[MHV9218]

Of course you wouldn't because you're perfectly fine with taking from hard working professionals.

 

Did it ever dawn on you that successful people MAKE more opportunities for themselves?  No one is going to give you anything.  You have to go out there and get it.

 

Blah blah blah the successful did it for themselves.

 

Here, this is a pretty centrist guy who sometimes knows what he's talking about:

 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Blah blah blah the successful did it for themselves.

 

Here, this is a pretty centrist guy who sometimes knows what he's talking about:

 

 

LOL! He's the last guy I would be listening to with his fantasic "Obamacare".  

[MHV9218]

You mean Romneycare?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You mean Romneycare?

No, I mean Obamacare. Mitt Romney actually lowered taxes and businesses were profitable when he was Governor of Massachusetts and he left office with the state having a surplus.  Under Barack Hussein Obama, businesses are already holding off on hiring due to the impending Obamacare program. 

[qjtransitmaster]

No, I mean Obamacare. Mitt Romney actually lowered taxes and businesses were profitable when he was Governor of Massachusetts and he left office with the state having a surplus.  Under Barack Hussein Obama, businesses are already holding off on hiring due to the impending Obamacare program. 

You do realize it was inspired by Mitt Romney right?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You do realize it was inspired by Mitt Romney right?

Let's not kid ourselves into believing that what Mitt Romney created is the same thing Obama came up with.  Under Romney businesses hired, taxes were lowered and businesses profited because they had fewer fiscal burdens on them.  Obamacare is a fiscal burden for many businesses, hence why they're holding off on hiring or considering reducing staff.