Linkfest: Subway Updates
---
(Pun intended.)
---
ITEM: A federal transit bureaucracy has cleared a $1.3 billion allocation of federal tax dollars to the New York City transit bureaucracy to help underwrite a new subway line under Second Avenue in Manhattan. Why exactly taxpayers in, e.g., California, Utah or Missouri (or, for that matter, New York) should be expected to pay for a new subway line in Manhattan — that they will likely never use in a neighborhood they will likely never visit — is left unexplained. But such "everybody pays for everything" schemes are, somehow, more "enlightened" than simply having those who use mass transit pay for it (with, if truly necessary, means-tested discounts for the poor). Previous post here.
---
ITEM: Speaking of discounts —
As I explained in this post: the cost structure of mass transit also argued in favor of a flat fare, despite the intuitive, almost market-sounding presumption of "ride farther, pay more." But the more accurate heuristic — "cost more, pay more" — actually argues against zone-based fares: the marginal cost of riding the subway a longer distance is essentially zero, hence the additional fare should also be zero (i.e., a flat fare).
But capacity pricing — a higher rush hour fare — was, as I noted, another question altogether. Now that the technology exists (via encodable fare cards and computerized turnstiles) to easily implement peak versus off-peak fares, it is perfectly sensible to do so. Those who cause the required capacity of the subway system to be larger at one time of day rather than at another (i.e., those who impose a significant marginal cost on the system) should be expected to pay for that larger capacity. "Peak versus off-peak fares" is a perfectly sensible system that should definitely be implemented.
---
ITEM: A special subway "Question" — Cell phones on subway platforms: Normal technological progress or cacophonous nightmare?
---
ITEM: A federal transit bureaucracy has cleared a $1.3 billion allocation of federal tax dollars to the New York City transit bureaucracy to help underwrite a new subway line under Second Avenue in Manhattan. Why exactly taxpayers in, e.g., California, Utah or Missouri (or, for that matter, New York) should be expected to pay for a new subway line in Manhattan — that they will likely never use in a neighborhood they will likely never visit — is left unexplained. But such "everybody pays for everything" schemes are, somehow, more "enlightened" than simply having those who use mass transit pay for it (with, if truly necessary, means-tested discounts for the poor). Previous post here.
---
ITEM: Speaking of discounts —
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority yesterday proposed charging people less if they ride subways or buses during off-peak periods, in hopes of easing overcrowding during the commuting rushes.One of the reasons that a flat-fare mass transit system actually made more sense than a distance-based fare was precisely because it was cheaper to implement: drop a coin (later a token) into a turnstile and go. No need for "honor systems" backed up by random ticket inspections and the threat of fines, as is done in most of Europe and in some American cities.
...
Elliot G. Sander, the chief executive of the authority, said the alternative structure could help address the system’s rush hour congestion as well as generate more money.
...
It would be relatively easy to program the turnstiles to charge different rates at different hours, officials said.
As I explained in this post: the cost structure of mass transit also argued in favor of a flat fare, despite the intuitive, almost market-sounding presumption of "ride farther, pay more." But the more accurate heuristic — "cost more, pay more" — actually argues against zone-based fares: the marginal cost of riding the subway a longer distance is essentially zero, hence the additional fare should also be zero (i.e., a flat fare).
But capacity pricing — a higher rush hour fare — was, as I noted, another question altogether. Now that the technology exists (via encodable fare cards and computerized turnstiles) to easily implement peak versus off-peak fares, it is perfectly sensible to do so. Those who cause the required capacity of the subway system to be larger at one time of day rather than at another (i.e., those who impose a significant marginal cost on the system) should be expected to pay for that larger capacity. "Peak versus off-peak fares" is a perfectly sensible system that should definitely be implemented.
---
ITEM: A special subway "Question" — Cell phones on subway platforms: Normal technological progress or cacophonous nightmare?
Posted by Kip on
27 September 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
