The MTA’s new chairman, Jay Walder, is said to be considering discounted fares for subway and bus riders who use the transit system during off-peak hours, according to the New York Times.
The proposal would encourage more people to use the system at night and on weekends. Riders would use a new scannable fare card that would charge different prices depending on the time of day. It’s a practice already in effect in London where Walder last worked.
When asked about the plan Wednesday night, New Yorkers had mixed reactions.
Separately, Walder did not tell the Times if he supports raising the $2.25 fare for peak travel time.
Any change would have to be approved by the MTA board.
(Source: NY1)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
that is very smart thinking , and lets get on with it . if someone thinks that at the moment the fair is to high , let them drive in to the city see how much it costs.
I say privatize the the subway system. It may seem like a radical or reactionary idea but Conrail is totally private, makes a tidy profit, and services those parts of the country that want freight rail and doesn’t service the parts of the country that don’t want it. It would be accountable to the people instead of patronage politics. So therefore, if they decided to jackhammer 4:30 on a Shabbos morning, there would be to whom to complain to instead getting some type of drivel.
#1 The only reason it costs so much to drive in is because the same government that brings you the MTA brought you the tolls! they have a special interest in having you ride the MTA system. Privatize- they would finish construction faster and would have better customer service as there would be a choice (in buses) or people wont ride it anymore! They want to do what makes business sense. They would be in it for profit, not just because its part of government bureaucracy.
By the way, since governments in general will most likely not give up control of something they have (past precedent) I support off peak travel. like 9:30am to 3 pm travel and after 7 pm. Off peak should be when less people are on the systems and not just at midnight ect.
#2 Bubby
Why would privatizing the subway make it more accountable to the people? L’hefech – it would be more concerned with making a profit.
You make an excellent point – Conrail stopped servicing the parts of the country where it wasn’t profitable. Likewise, a privatized subway system would increase fares during peak times, and discontinue lines that are not profitable. The heck with the people – it’s a business, not a service.
Besides, comparing freight rail with a commuter subway is apples and oranges. And you know Conrail was created by the government, right?
justajew, that is right, the government created it but Ronald Reagan privatized it.
Your statement of privatizing the subway is missing a point. If a private company wants to make a profit it must listen to it’s customers. Remember the old adage, “The customer is always right.”
Comparing a freight rail to a commuter subway is a very close comparison. The Culver, West End, and Brighton lines were originally the Coney Island and Brighton Beach branches of the Long Island Railroad. The tracks in Flatbush were first laid in 1875.
If companies want to make a profit they have to be willing to be receptive to customer input such as complaints. A business to survive has to be conscientious and listen to customer input.
Your premise I presume is that business is only out to make money and doesn’t care about the little guy. But, if business wants to sell or otherwise profit from the little guy than it has to be willing to adjust to the demands of the market or consumer.
The subway was in the beginning private. But, after the Independent line was built which was owned by the city, the Interborough Rapid Transit System and the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit System couldn’t compete. So, the city absorbed those. This is the similar theory behind a public option in healthcare. Just create a government agency that is not concerned with creating a profit and therefore it can undercut the private insurance companies. The consumer will dump private insurance for the cheaper public option. Then, no one will be owning private insurance.
If your premise is that making a profit is somehow cruel, mean spirited, and selfish and nothing to do with consumer demand, than your whole logic is flawed. It is as if you have falling for all of the propaganda in favor of not enough government regulation and the government should run everything.
You may also want large government because of the government patronage you are able to enjoy…..
My premise is not that making a profit is cruel or selfish; my premise is that a private company’s priority is making a profit. The government’s priority is (or at least SHOULD be) providing necessary services to the taxpayer, even if it doesn’t mean making a profit.
Again, using your example – if a private company takes over the subway, and determines that the N line is not profitable and wants to discontinue it, what recourse do you have? Of course it would be making the correct decision in terms of the bottom line and interests of the board (or shareowners). But those people that depend on the discontinued service would be out of luck (unless the government took it over again).
Don’t assume I want large government – I just fail to see your logic as to why a privatized subway system would be better for the people at large than the current system.
At my (private) company, we also listen to customer complaints. But if we discontinue an item because it’s not profitable for us, boo hoo to the customers who have been ordering it for 5 years.
If you would have read more closely my post, you would seen that I said that the company who wants to be profitable will listen to customer input for the intent and purpose of feedback. This is how the company is able to gather information if their business decisions are correct.
And let’s say a private company decides to close the N train, so then a gypsy cab will take over. Or someone who is upset will start a gypsy cab service provided the government is not overtaxing and regulating them. Sigh…….
So…to sum up, you’re happier with a private company running fewer services as long as their profitable, because the missing services will be taken up by other private ventures. Is that correct?
You can have your private gypsy cab. I’ll stick to the public transportation system, one of the best in the world.
And by the way, I did as you requested and I’m waiting for a response:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=40884