Passenger Trains > NY: "we pay the highest fares"

The NY Times has an article about the arcane world of fare box recovery, and how it plays out on and under the ground in New York City and its NY suburbs. The issue has received new importance as a Long Island judge has ruled a significant segment of the system's funding structure is unconstitutional.

NY's Metropolitan Transportation Authority is composed of the five counties of New York City, the two counties of Long Island, and upstate counties of Rockland, Orange, Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess. Funding comes from a payroll tax on workers in the region, from a sales tax surcharge, from a real estate tax, and (largely) from bridge and tunnel tolls. The payroll tax is what was declared illegal.

The article mentions that the fare box recovery represents how much of the cost of running the system is borne by the riders. I believe this is an "all in" number, rather than the "above the rails, mostly" fare box number used by some other operators.

>>For the transportation authority, it was 54 percent in September, the most recent reporting period. In other words, riders throughout the region covered more than half the cost of their commute.

Not all passengers are equal, though, in this regard.

The burden is significantly greater for New York City subway riders. Their ratio is 72 percent, according to an analysis by the National Transit Database, part of the federal Transportation Department. It means that nearly three of every four dollars needed to run the subways come directly from MetroCard swipes. For city bus riders, the comparable ratio is only 37 percent. It is 49 percent for those who use the Long Island Rail Road and 59 percent for those on Metro-North.

The federal study also shows that the subway ratio is a good deal higher here than in other cities. In Atlanta, it’s 34 percent, in Boston 50 percent, in Philadelphia 51 percent, in Chicago 53 percent.<<


http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/assessing-the-financial-burden-of-being-an-m-t-a-rider/

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NY Times has an article about the arcane world
> of fare box recovery, and how it plays out on and
> under the ground in New York City and its NY
> suburbs. The issue has received new importance as
> a Long Island judge has ruled a significant
> segment of the system's funding structure is
> unconstitutional.
>
> NY's Metropolitan Transportation Authority is
> composed of the five counties of New York City,
> the two counties of Long Island, and upstate
> counties of Rockland, Orange, Westchester, Putnam,
> and Dutchess. Funding comes from a payroll tax on
> workers in the region, from a sales tax surcharge,
> from a real estate tax, and (largely) from bridge
> and tunnel tolls. The payroll tax is what was
> declared illegal.
>
> The article mentions that the fare box recovery
> represents how much of the cost of running the
> system is borne by the riders. I believe this is
> an "all in" number, rather than the "above the
> rails, mostly" fare box number used by some other
> operators.
>
> >>For the transportation authority, it was 54
> percent in September, the most recent reporting
> period. In other words, riders throughout the
> region covered more than half the cost of their
> commute.
>
> Not all passengers are equal, though, in this
> regard.
>
> The burden is significantly greater for New York
> City subway riders. Their ratio is 72 percent,
> according to an analysis by the National Transit
> Database, part of the federal Transportation
> Department. It means that nearly three of every
> four dollars needed to run the subways come
> directly from MetroCard swipes. For city bus
> riders, the comparable ratio is only 37 percent.
> It is 49 percent for those who use the Long Island
> Rail Road and 59 percent for those on
> Metro-North.
>
> The federal study also shows that the subway ratio
> is a good deal higher here than in other cities.
> In Atlanta, it’s 34 percent, in Boston 50
> percent, in Philadelphia 51 percent, in Chicago 53
> percent.<<
>
>
>

LOL - Let them eat cake.

Bob

Any mention of why it's $13 to cross the #%€£@$& Verazzno Bridge!?!

It's funny that it costs less to cross the 23 miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge than the 1/2 mile of the Verazzno or Outer Bridge crossing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/12 18:44 by MrMichael.

Everyone wants a free ride.

MrMichael Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any mention of why it's $13 to cross the
> #%€£@$& Verazzno Bridge!?!
>
> It's funny that it costs less to cross the 23
> miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge than the 1/2
> mile of the Verazzno or Outer Bridge crossing.

The bridges and tunnels of the MTA largely subsidize the subways, buses, and trains. Staten Island residents get a steep discount on the tolls via their E-Z Pass ($5.75 versus $13). Their political power also gets them a break on the Goethals and Outerbridge of the PANYNJ (similar discount).

New Jersey residents and other borough drivers get to pay a much higher rate...

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> New Jersey residents and other borough drivers get
> to pay a much higher rate...

I thought New Jersey residents drove on bridges and tunnels owned by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey when driving to and from Manhattan.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > New Jersey residents and other borough drivers
> get
> > to pay a much higher rate...
>
> I thought New Jersey residents drove on bridges
> and tunnels owned by the Port Authority of New
> York & New Jersey when driving to and from
> Manhattan.

Yes, and they do get to pay a higher rate than New York drivers.

MrMichael Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any mention of why it's $13 to cross the
> #%€£@$& Verazzno Bridge!?!
>
> It's funny that it costs less to cross the 23
> miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge than the 1/2
> mile of the Verazzno or Outer Bridge crossing.


You really think Verrazano narrows is half mile long? :)

Let me answer the first question (how wide is the Verazzano Narrows?), and then get to the real public policy issues. The Verazzano Narrows Bridge is 4,620 feet between towers, and total length is 7,200 feet. So the Narrows is about a mile and a half wide.

Now on to public policy. The ratios haven't changed two much since I worked for NYMTA more than 25 years ago. The subways cover the highest percentage of costs by far, the buses much less. But the real beef of policymakers is with the commuter railroads (LIRR and MNR), which cover substantially less of their costs than does the subway. Since subway riders are *much* less wealthy than residents of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Fairfield counties, this doesn't seem very fair. Unfortunately, it's a result of what economists refer to as "demand elasticity". New Yorkers have a high rate of transit use (highest in the US) and a low rate of car ownership. Result: they're captive to the subway system. Suburban riders have cars and higher incomes, and their use of transit is discretionary. Result is that subsidy level is much higher.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now on to public policy. The ratios haven't
> changed two much since I worked for NYMTA more
> than 25 years ago. The subways cover the highest
> percentage of costs by far, the buses much less.
> But the real beef of policymakers is with the
> commuter railroads (LIRR and MNR), which cover
> substantially less of their costs than does the
> subway. Since subway riders are *much* less
> wealthy than residents of Nassau, Suffolk,
> Westchester, and Fairfield counties, this doesn't
> seem very fair. Unfortunately, it's a result of
> what economists refer to as "demand elasticity".
> New Yorkers have a high rate of transit use
> (highest in the US) and a low rate of car
> ownership. Result: they're captive to the subway
> system. Suburban riders have cars and higher
> incomes, and their use of transit is
> discretionary. Result is that subsidy level is
> much higher.

If you did not subsidize the commuter trains for the wealthy residents of the outlying areas, would New York City lose some high paying jobs and everyone be worse off?

MrMichael Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any mention of why it's $13 to cross the
> #%€£@$& Verazzno Bridge!?!
>
> It's funny that it costs less to cross the 23
> miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge than the 1/2
> mile of the Verazzno or Outer Bridge crossing.

No entity, public or private, can charge more than people will pay.

The Verrazano Bridge has a $13 toll because people will pay it rather than drive out of their way through New York area traffic to cross the Hudson at another location, where there's probably a toll too!

ddkid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMichael Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Any mention of why it's $13 to cross the
> > #%€£@$& Verazzno Bridge!?!
> >
> > It's funny that it costs less to cross the 23
> > miles of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge than the 1/2
> > mile of the Verazzno or Outer Bridge crossing.
>
> No entity, public or private, can charge more than
> people will pay.
>
> The Verrazano Bridge has a $13 toll because people
> will pay it rather than drive out of their way
> through New York area traffic to cross the Hudson
> at another location, where there's probably a toll
> too!

There are tolls all the way up the Hudson River. On every crossing. I believe the first free (completely supported by the taxpayers and the gasoline tax) highway bridge is all the way up at Albany.

The Verrazano toll and the PANYNJ tolls on the Outerbridge etc are cleverly designed to provide a benefit to Staten Island residents that isn't available to NJ residents or residents of other boroughs or Long Island, etc. The PANYNJ and MTA tolls are as high as they are because they have to subsidize the subways, commuter railroads, World Trade Center rebuilding, and a host of other projects.

Professor Vickery's work on congestion pricing (don't give commuters a discount, make them pay more to cover the marginal cost of that extra capacity) could be relevant here.

ddkid Wrote:
> The Verrazano Bridge has a $13 toll because people
> will pay it rather than drive out of their way
> through New York area traffic to cross the Hudson
> at another location, where there's probably a toll
> too!

The proposed automobile toll for the planned rebuild of the Tappan Zee Thruway bridge is now in the $15 range.

Ray

p.s. The toll at Poughkeepsie is still $1.50 eastbound and no toll westbound.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/12 09:29 by Ray_Murphy.

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ddkid Wrote:
> > The Verrazano Bridge has a $13 toll because
> people
> > will pay it rather than drive out of their way
> > through New York area traffic to cross the
> Hudson
> > at another location, where there's probably a
> toll
> > too!
>
> The proposed automobile toll for the planned
> rebuild of the Tappan Zee Thruway bridge is now in
> the $15 range.
>
> Ray
>
> p.s. The toll at Poughkeepsie is still $1.50
> eastbound and no toll westbound.

Verrazano is tolled only in the outbound (westbound) direction, and Outerbridge Crossing and Goethals are tolled only in the inbound direction.

Reminds of my clients (smaller cities mostly) where everyone complains about sewer/water rates increasing now and then. Everyone expects clean water to drink/sufficient water pressure for the fire department; not to mention all the bad stuff disappearing down the toilet with a simple flush. To accomplish this costs money which has to come from somewhere: user fees, taxes, etc. To me, users should pay for it; same with subways or other transit.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you did not subsidize the commuter trains for
> the wealthy residents of the outlying areas, would
> New York City lose some high paying jobs and
> everyone be worse off?

Where do you draw the line between "wealthy" and "not wealthy"? In general, there would be higher congestion and decreased mobility (as people would choose to not take certain trips) thus resulting in a net negative economic impact.

The thing with commuter rail in New York (as well as in Philadelphia, and maybe some other cities) is that it is not really COMMUTER rail.....it's regional rail and has the same nature as S-Bahn/RER in European cities. Even though the service is less frequent (hourly, maybe half-hourly is some cases), weekend trains on many NJT, MN, LIRR, and SEPTA lines are rather crowded.

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > If you did not subsidize the commuter trains
> for
> > the wealthy residents of the outlying areas,
> would
> > New York City lose some high paying jobs and
> > everyone be worse off?
>
> Where do you draw the line between "wealthy" and
> "not wealthy"? In general, there would be higher
> congestion and decreased mobility (as people would
> choose to not take certain trips) thus resulting
> in a net negative economic impact.
>
> The thing with commuter rail in New York (as well
> as in Philadelphia, and maybe some other cities)
> is that it is not really COMMUTER rail.....it's
> regional rail and has the same nature as
> S-Bahn/RER in European cities. Even though the
> service is less frequent (hourly, maybe
> half-hourly is some cases), weekend trains on many
> NJT, MN, LIRR, and SEPTA lines are rather crowded.

Or, companies could find it profitable to open offices in places nearer where execs live. Places like Florham Park, Short Hills, White Plains, Rye, Greenwich, Stamford, etc are filled with offices of NYC based firms.

In the NY, NJ, CT area many firms have offices in multiple locations, and many execs have offices in each of the places. With today's technology, you can work three days a week from a NJ location, one day a week from a NY location, and one day traveling. That's not unusual, I did it for years.

The tax benefit of such an arrangement is significant. If you live in NJ or CT, NY will tax you for any work day you're in NY. In a higher tax bracket, this can be thousands of dollars in tax savings and thousands in saved commuter fares. Back in the days when NYC taxed commuters, this bite was a significant consideration when considering a new job.