Slashdot Mirror
NYC Subway, Bus Services Have Entered 'Death Spiral,' Experts Say (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) warned last week that without a major infusion of cash, [New York City's subway and bus services] will have to drastically cut service or increase fares on the system that carries millions of New Yorkers around the city. The system's financial straits have gotten worse in part because it has fewer riders, and is collecting less money in fares. Expected passenger revenue over a five-year period has dropped by $485 million since July.
"They've entered this death spiral," said Benjamin Kabak, who runs the transit website Second Avenue Sagas. "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service." The authority is proposing a fare hike that would take effect in March. One option would raise the basic fare for a ride to $3 from the current $2.75. Another option would leave the base fare the same but increase the cost of monthly passes and eliminate bonuses for riders. They are also proposing $41 million a year in service cuts, mainly increasing the time between trains and buses on some routes. And, if approved, the plan would delay the launch of faster bus routes. The proposed cuts "will still leave the MTA with massive deficits, expected to hit nearly $1 billion a year by 2022," the report says. "To tackle those deficits, officials say they would have to cut service more drastically, or raise fares by an additional 15%."
"They've entered this death spiral," said Benjamin Kabak, who runs the transit website Second Avenue Sagas. "The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service." The authority is proposing a fare hike that would take effect in March. One option would raise the basic fare for a ride to $3 from the current $2.75. Another option would leave the base fare the same but increase the cost of monthly passes and eliminate bonuses for riders. They are also proposing $41 million a year in service cuts, mainly increasing the time between trains and buses on some routes. And, if approved, the plan would delay the launch of faster bus routes. The proposed cuts "will still leave the MTA with massive deficits, expected to hit nearly $1 billion a year by 2022," the report says. "To tackle those deficits, officials say they would have to cut service more drastically, or raise fares by an additional 15%."
Doesn't work? It carries 5,000,000 people per day. What would happen in NYC if there was no subway or buses? Total collapse.
Itâ(TM)s a bit disenguous to say that people ARENâ(TM)T riding New York transit. 2017 had 1.73 BILLION subway boardings alone.
The problem comes with ridehailing companies. While there are plenty of criticisms to be had about the medallion system, it did keep more private automobiles off the road and keep more people on transit than Uber or Lyft whose use has been directly correlated with reduced transit use nationwide.
As unpopular as transit is in much of the nation, when you get SO MANY people crunched into the same space, youâ(TM)ve simply got to ensure people donâ(TM)t drive or else the pollution, road risk, and quality of life simply ranks.
Exactly. They are talking about raising the fares twenty five cents. The real question is why are the fares still $2.75? The cost of a bottle of water in NYC is $1.80. The cost of a 1 mile taxi ride is $8.00.
I never understand people. What is the alternative? The same trip will cost you $20 in taxi fare, or even in your own car. Bizarre. The only cheaper alternative is a bike. Surely the alternative is to raise wages.
Nonsense. The only problem of public transport is everyone expecting it to be profitable. If it is supposed to retain usability and at least a minimum of attractiveness in terms of both service and price, it just can't be profitable in the long run. To be and stay an affordable and usable means of transportation, it has to be publicly financed, and generously so. It's really that simple.
Reducing its attractiveness further in order to cut losses will just make it even less attractive, as TFA correctly said.
Transit pays for itself by keeping pollution out of your stupid lungs. People are stupid and short sighted. The problem is that automobile infrastructure in the US is subsidized and socialized.
How many city transport systems make a profit?
It is perfectly normal for subways to only get a fraction of their income from ticket sales. And for governments to fund the system from taxes, just like the roads.
What is wrong with the NYC and state governments that they don't want to fund a transport system worthy of a great city?
Odd that the article fails to mention the core economics fundamentals at issue here, such as the stifling burden of union pensions for retired MTA workers. It also fails to note the core management issues, like union contracts prohibiting: a) firing employees for incompetence, or b) initiating merit-based pay increases as an incentive to improve performance. Failing infrastructure is a consequence of incompetent planning, management & maintenance, while failing finances is a consequence of entrenched expenditure largess. The article addresses neither of these concerns.
It also strikes me as peculiar that former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has recently donated $1.8 billion (!) to Johns Hopkins University—a private university in Baltimore, Maryland and his alma mater—but he has offered no financial assistance to his beloved city's core transportation system. It makes one wonder just how committed he is to fixing his city's financial & governance issues and/or core infrastructure problems. It's almost as if he prefers to leave those problems unaddressed so he can campaign to fix them in his next run for political office, while taking a substantial tax deduction for a donation to a private institution. Or perhaps he's just angling to become President of Johns Hopkins University? Or perhaps I'm just being cynical? *smirk*
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
From the summary:
"The subway service and the bus service has become unreliable enough for people to stop using it. If people aren't using it, there's less money, and they have to keep raising fares without delivering better service."
The solution to this problem isn't increasing fares or reducing services.
It's identifying (and rectifying) why services have become unreliable to the point people don't want to use them.
The problem is not "public" services, it is deciding that certain "public" services should be operated as businesses. Expecting public transit services to pay for themselves is as ridiculous as expecting that the highway department should be revenue neutral. Transportation in its many forms is necessary to a healthy economy, the best way to facilitate it is through taxes.
Raising fairs any more will simply guarantee empty trains and busses.
That's why it's a death spiral. Higher fares mean less riders which means higher fares and so on.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If it was economical and a better way to travel then people would be willing to pay market rates (what it costs to operate) in order to use it. Most times they are not. You see it in New York, San Francisco - all over. I'd agree with your premise - Raise the rates. Raise them until it can pay for itself. See if it still works for people. If it does wonderful. It might not though.
Excellent idea. In the same vein, let's also:
Then we can truly see what is more "economical" and whether people will be "willing to pay market rates". Let's go for it!
Transit is infrastructure, so the illusion is in commercial expectations.
Private companies can do just fine, as long as there is competition and reasonable gov't regulation. Here in Taipei, public transit is pretty awesome. There are multiple private bus companies, but they all use a common price scheme set by the gov't. They have RFID cards which can be used for buses and the MRT, and the card can also function as a cash-storage device, and can be used to buy stuff at any convenience store. With an additional registration process (essentially, they want your email address) the card can also be used to access the local bicycle-sharing program.
On top of that, taxis are ubiquitous and cheap -- again, privately run, but heavily regulated -- with a mix of large fleets and self-employed owner-operators. So even when the buses quit running (around 11pm) you can still get home from the pub at a very reasonable cost. I've never owned a car here, but I even gave up the motorcycle about 8~10 years ago (gave it to one of my employees) because I never used it, and it was always a hassle to find parking. Public transit is just too easy here.
So, no, I don't think that "commercial expectations" necessarily prevent the delivery of excellent service to the public. Nor do I think that gov't regulation is too burdensome on private enterprise.The same half-dozen bus companies have been serving Taipei since I first came here in 1990, and they're all still in business, and seem to be doing just fine, judging by how well they maintain and upgrade their buses.
This battle over funding the NYC subway has been brewing for quite a while, with Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Cuomo each pointing fingers at the other. And it was a big issue in the Dems' gubernatorial primary recently, as Cynthia Nixon accused Cuomo of failing to spend money that was appropriated (or something like that...) I don't know much about the NYC situation, but I'm quite certain that public transit is cool, because I use it every day.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Well golly, we could fund all sorts of things if we didn't fund the military...for awhile...until those nice Russian and Chinese discovered they could do whatever they wanted with U.S. trading partners, like shutting down trade with the U.S.
That's like, total nonsense.
The US military can be easily 50% smaller and still way ahead of Russia and China. The problem with the American military-industrial complex is that it's not actually focused on defense and American military superiority, it's focused on making huge profits. It's been happy to rake in billions and billions of dollars for mostly or absolutely useless projects. When the Pentagon resists, bribing, er, sorry, lobbying members of Congress usually does wonders. There have been tons of examples of the military buying stuff it clearly says it doesn't want, keeping operational equipment they've wanted to retire, retiring operating equipment unnecessarily early in order to force purchases of replacements, and so on.
Transit pays for itself by keeping pollution out of your stupid lungs.
Also it pays for itself by allowing NYC to function. Traffic is bad enough already. If everyone had to drive to work, it would be a disaster.
Saying that it needs taxpayer money doesn't negate that. There are tons of companies and rich people who benefit from having the capability to bring workers and customers into their locations, and the fact that traffic flows allows them to get shipments in and out. Those rich people and companies should contribute to the transportation infrastructure, but they're not going to willingly, out of the goodness of their heart.
So you have taxes. There's nothing inherently bad about taxes. The fact that public transportation is subsidized by taxes is not a sign that it's not doing a good job, or that it's not 100% worth the money spent on it.
The term "death spiral" is specific. It refers to a tipping point where your price goes past the optimum on supply/demand, such that raising prices means less overall money once people substitute alternatives, or simply do without.
In this case, people have clearly been doing just that in NYC, as total ridership has been dropping. Raising fares is unlikely to increase that, right? Cutting routes won't increase riders either, right?
It's fine to be skeptical of some internet article, but do read the MTA's own report.
Plan is balanced through 2019 using "one-shots," and the deficits for 2020, 2021 and 2022 have increased to $510 million, $816 million and $991 million, respectively
It doesn't look good.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The "profit" of a public transport system for the public is not money but having a transport system that takes pressure from your already congested roads.
Not every revenue is nickles and dimes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think the main issue is that there are a lot of people living in the 5 boroughs who have been there all their life and are not the transient population that moved there for their 20s or even 30s who most likely are on the wealthier end of the spectrum (i.e. they appear fine to spend ridiculous amounts of money on rent and it is only increasing). The "lifers" of NYC have observed the cost of a 30-day metrocard go from $65 (circa 1998) to nearly double at $121 today. When you live in NYC, most people don't drive and completely rely on the bus/subway system MTA provides and thus is a necessity to get to work or school (yes, your high school might not be within walking distance or even the same borough and there is no school bus like the suburbs).
Subway ridership has increased over 35% in the same time frame of 1998-2018. During this time the MTA has mostly refreshed its rolling stock while doing some infrastructure improvements, which is good and obviously expensive. However, they've also reignited the 2nd Ave line work which is a major cost to the city and I suspect is the main financial drain and somewhat why it hasn't been explored in many decades. I can only imagine that it was started up again because someone ran a spreadsheet which showed that if they build this, they'll increase property values on the east side which means they can increase property taxes which means more revenue for the city. But how much of that is going back to the MTA?
I don't know the answers to this but I get the sense that budgets are somewhat getting driven by greed and the desire to further gentrify the boroughs rather than provide the best service for the people who have lived their all their lives. Simply saying "keep increasing the fare" is ignoring the needs of the majority of people that live in the city and won't move away after their few years of their "city living" experience.
(rant finished)
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Ok, come to London then. The first, and the oldest (1863), and it works well. Yes, the Tube's a bit cramped by modern standards and they haven't been able to fit things like A/C on some of the lines, but visiting NYC and riding the subway there feels like a step back to the 1970s. Not quite as old, but go to Moscow and see another older system that works even better than London does. I think it's a fallacy claiming that the age of the system is the problem. But it is like software engineering, where if you don't take care of the technical debt in managable chunks as you go along, you end up drowning in broken unmaintainable shit and buggy hard to use product that users hate.
Because forcing people to use run-down and broken public transportation doesn't fix the problem of a systematic, long-term lack of investment in the transportation infrastructure. What fixes that is more money. Where that money comes from used to be the economic engine of the middle class, but that's pretty much gone. Where did the money go? To the 1%. So if we need money to fix problems, that's where it's going to have to come from.
If the rich had been content to be rich, life would go on as usual. But they weren't content with that. They needed to have it all while everyone else got pretty much nothing. Right now, the top 1% richest people in the US own 35% of the wealth. If you look at the top 5% of the richest people in the US, they have 62% of the wealth in the country. That's absurd. And the bottom 40% of people, the bottom half of what used to be the middle class and the poor, own less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
40% of our country collectively owns 1% of the wealth of the whole country. I get that you've got yours and fuck everyone else, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. It's not "soaking the rich" when they're so wealthy they don't know what to do with it, and we literally can't get any more money out of 40% of the population.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
That and what follows is what killed your public transit.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org