How
much should it cost to ride mass transit?
Are our fares too high? Would
lower fares increase ridership? If so. why
not make the trains free?
As
I’ve noted any number of times, fares on Metro-North in Connecticut are among
the highest commuter railroad fares in the US.
That’s because our state’s subsidy is the lowest… about 24%, compared to
a 50% fare subsidy
on the Long Island Railroad. Of course, Hartford’s attitude is that everyone in
Fairfield County is a millionaire and can afford to pay more.
Ironically,
every time there’s a fare increase, ridership doesn’t go down… it goes up. Why?
Because the travel alternatives, especially going into NYC, are few and
all of them are getting worse.
Metro-North has a captive audience.
Commuters have no choice but to take the train.
Fare
subsidies are much higher on the Danbury and Waterbury branch lines and Shore
Line East where ridership is lighter compared to the mainline. But service is also less frequent, which
might counter those who think lower fares would attract more passengers: cheap fares and poor service aren’t what we
want.
Of
course, few passengers on Metro-North actually pay “full fare”. Off-peak riders get a 25% discount as do
members of the military on all trains.
Seniors and the disabled get a 50% price break as do monthly commuters.
While
I understand that daily commuters think they deserve a break, they also place
the greatest strain on the system over the shortest number of hours, Aside from
the frequency of their travel, one could argue that they should be paying a
premium, not getting 50% off.
Of
course, the fares are the same whether you’re rich or poor, which is why some
have started asking for a “fairer fare”, one based on a rider’s ability to pay.
In
New York City where subways and buses cost $2.75, there are price breaks for
seniors (50%) and even all-you-can-ride monthly passes. But starting in January 2019 those living
below the poverty line (income of $25,000 for a family of four) will qualify
for a 50% discount MetroCard. Some 800,000 residents will potentially be
eligible for the plan.
NYC Mayor De
Blasio says the $106 million subsidy would be better carried by rich taxpayers,
not the rest.
Similar
discounts for the poor have worked well in Seattle
and Toronto (where NYC Subway’s new chief Andy Byford
came from). Proponents argue that
mobility is an essential right and if you want to get people out of poverty,
they’ve got to be able to afford to get to their job.
So…
why not free mass transit?
That’s
what they’ve just launched in Estonia in an effort to fight traffic and air pollution. Skeptics says it will help fight neither but
will only replace walking with tram rides.
One
Connecticut lawmaker once proposed free rides for all Seniors. But I don’t
think the fare is the reason seniors don’t take buses. It’s the service and
fears for their safety.
But
all such “free” service begs the question of who is really paying for it… the
taxpayers. As with our “free” highways (the
ones without tolls), I think it’s much fairer to ask those who use the service
to help pay for it.
Posted with permission of Hearst CT Media
No comments:
Post a Comment