(Un)Fare hike

The fare hike news has people hopping mad.
Especially the knowledge that after the 8% increase next July, there will be another 3% increase 18 months later.

The NYTimes blog post about this features comments with a bevy of suggestions. Some in support of the fare increase and some in dissent.

What is the most striking to me is the sense of betrayal that I infer when I read the dissenters posts. I mean, there is anger to be sure, but mostly these commenters, these fellow riders, feel let down by the system that runs their day (if not their City). I share with them (as I’ve made plain before) the frustration that the increases in fares does not mean and increase in service or appearance; that the MTA has been known to keep two sets of books and lose million dollar surpluses overnight.
This isn’t right. That’s the root of the feeling. This isn’t right and no one is standing up for us.

Now, some of the supporters, the ones not calling people “Communists” (which, really? Is that really still used as an insult?) raise some interesting points that 1. the NYC subway system is (ostensibly) 24/7 no other system in the world keeps that kind of a schedule making those other systems easier to clean and run.
2. The NYC subway system is over a 100-years old and repairing something that old is always quite costly and time consuming and 3. it is a fallacy to assume that higher fares mean an increase in service –that’d be like expecting a HUGE Bigmac personally brought out to your car whenever Mickey D’s raises its prices.
And finally, 4. that because the MTA is not wholly privatized (and many of it’s executives are appointed) it is not able to raise the fares to the levels that it really needs to raise them to in order to get things done because if it did that it’d have to deal with a whole lot of political fallout.

I was impressed with these arguments but that doesn’t change my feeling that:

1. The subway system could remain 24/7 and still have cleaner cars/stations. All that is necessary is a clear change in policy as far as WHICH lines will be running all day and when. If riders knew that at suchandsuch time suchandsuch stations would be closed for cleaning, repair and train servicing and if they could SEE the results they would learn to make the adjustment. This requires something that that MTA has historically lacked and that is clear, accessible and consistent information.

2. Many riders, particularly those in the outer boroughs can appreciate the age of the subway system. They needn’t be lectured about it after they’ve probably just endured an uncomfortable hour-long commute. I don’t need some sometime-y rider telling me about the age of the system and about how it’s unrealistic of me to hope each and every day as I wait for the Manhattan-bound Q at Parkside that the cracks in the tunnel (helpfully outlined in day-glow orange spray paint) don’t decide to burst. Again, if riders could see what kind of maintenance was being performed they wouldn’t be as upset about it.
The fact that one gets on the train in Brooklyn where many stations stink and the tracks are laid too far away from the train causing huge (and dangerous gaps) and where stops are often skipped without so much as a whathadhappenedwas and then travels in Manhattan where many stations are clean and beautiful and the trains stop regularly and there are MTA employees actually being useful in the booths is grating. It makes a person feel like the shit, not the money, rolls downhill. Because, I would argue, that the tunnels and lines of rail in the outer boroughs not nearly as old as the olds in Manhattan proper, and therefore should be easier to service and repair. The fact that costly cosmetic changes are consistently being made to stations in Manhattan trumps the logic that the system is too old to easily do anything with.

3. I, for one, am not asking for an increase in service. Sure, I’d like to be able to sit down during my commute and I’d like to have a little bit of air circulating every now and then but that’s not what I would consider an increase. That’s what I’d consider a modicum of service. The MTA needn’t increase the number of trains if it actually committed itself to the effective management of the trains and buses and the schedules that it already has. I’d be happy to continue to stand if I knew that after my time packed in like a sardine I’d at least get to work on time. Better yet, I’d feel better knowing that I WASN’T going to get to work on time because an MTA employee let it be known about what was going on during the rush hour. The thing about the Bigmac analogy is that even though you’re paying more for the Bigmac you know what you’re going to get and you know that you’re going to like it. You also know that if you feel like Mickey D’s has really caused you grief you can lodge a formal complaint and get some sort of recompense. Straphangers don’t really have that option.

4. I think that the MTA had an opportunity to raise the fares where it needed them to be to move forward: the 70’s and 80’s and early 90’s when the system was for shit. It does not make good political or business sense just to raise them so-so to do so-so work. Frankly, I think that the MTA doesn’t make the dramatic fare hikes that it needs because it realizes that then it would be even more beholden to the consumer to give them their money’s worth. It’s awful convenient to be able to say, “Hey, you’re only paying $2 a swipe. That’s a great deal. Sit down and shut up.” If we were paying $5 a swipe would the MTA be able to guarantee us that anything would change? I’m going to bet, no. The MTA is not raising fares to cover increases in service. The MTA is not raising fares to really meet its day-to-day operating costs. The MTA is raising fares to cover bad business decisions made 20 to 30 years ago. Even at $5 a swipe we’d have to wade through 30 year old financial bullshit before we even began to address today’s/tomorrow’s needs.

My suggestions?
1. A thorough audit of the MTA’s books by 3 independent external agencies.
2. Experts from all of the major cities with comparable transit systems analyze the NYC system and make suggestions.
3. Public hearings about the different suggestions.
4. Search for a new transit authority.
5. New transit authority is not staffed by officials who are not appointed by the riders.

What’ve you got?