Even though negotiations over an MTA rescue plan are now at a standstill, New York’s elected leaders say there won’t be fare hikes and service cuts. Today Gov. Paterson said of the fare hikes, “We are not going to put that burden on the people.” For his part, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said, “we will succeed, I believe, in overturning the draconian service cuts and the outrageous increases in fares that the board has proposed.” And Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith? His spokesperson said yesterday that “our conference is confident that we will have worked out a plan with the Assembly, the governor and the MTA.”
The Keep New York Moving coalition is holding them to their words by billing them for the fare increases that commuters will endure if Albany can’t agree on a transit rescue plan. Invoices were handed out to straphangers at Manhattan’s Union Square this morning, and 200 of those have already been sent [as of 1 pm. -SH]. NYC Transit riders can also download an invoice through TSTC.
So, despite the Albany impasse, don’t worry about the fare increase. Just send Senator Smith, Speaker Silver, and Gov. Paterson the bill.
Clark,
Since when does the private auto user cover all operating costs? NYC Transit currently covers about 2/3 of its costs via the farebox. There’s just no way that motorists cover 2/3 of the cost of building and maintaining the roads via registration and gas taxes. A tremendous amount of funds used for roads comes from the general fund and from property taxes rather than fees paid solely by drivers. Your argument falls flat on its face because you omit mention of vast amount of money that is spent on road subsidies for motorists.
Roads are capital costs. Road maintenance costs are at least partially paid for by vehicle associated taxes. Buses in many states are not even paying for the use of the roads and yet they lose money. Do the subways break even if you exclude the cost of track maintenance and all capital investment other than for rolling stock and shops?
I doubt the subways break even, or that any public transit system anywhere breaks even. I can’t speak to what goes in on other states because each jurisdiction runs their system in their own way – some are wholly government owned and operated, while others are run by private enterprises that are government regulated. The point is that every mode is subsidized to some degree because they are considered public goods. This includes the Interstate Highway System as well as local, county, and state roads.
Without speaking to some of the broader philosophical and policy issues Clark Morris and James have brought up, I think it’s useful to point out that the 23% fare increase planned for the MTA is being driven by ballooning debt service payments and the worsening economy (which is causing dedicated taxes to fall). It is not due to an increase in the cost of providing transit.
If the costs of providing transit increase, why shouldn’t the price of transit go up? The users are the primary beneficiaries. Since the automobile driver pays all fuel, maintenance, insurance and vehicle acquisition costs out of pocket, why shouldn’t the farebox cover fuel, labor, maintenance, insurance and vehicle purchase costs?