Today’s Headlines

  • Commission Votes 13-2 for Pricing (NYT, News, Post, Sun, AM, NY1)
  • NYT: It’s a Good Plan
  • Decision on Pier 40 Postponed (Post, Metro)
  • Ratner Still Set to Receive Atlantic Yards Subsidies (Brooklyn Paper)
  • Brooklyn AIA Draws Up a Gowanus-Free Third Avenue (Brooklyn Eagle)
  • Tri-State Transit Agencies Get More Anti-Terror Funds (NYT, AM, News, AP)
  • Former Assemblyman Charged With DWI (Post)
  • Motorist Jailed for Scheme to Evade Ticket (NYT)
  • Atlanta Debates a Return to Streetcars (AJC, via Planetizen)
  • San Francisco Abandons Free Transit Idea (SF Chronicle, via Planetizen)
  • Livable Cities Key to Earth’s Future (Dot Earth)
  • Larry Littlefield

    Right. It’s one thing to offer free transit in a region where 97% of the people drive, where the total cost of the transit system is negliable. It is another anyplace where the transit system is large.

    As it is, in FY 2005 the cost of the NYC transit system that is NOT covered by the fare was equal to 1.5% of the personal income of all the residents of NYC, even though the fare covers a larger than average share of costs there. Elsewhere, the non-fare cost of transit is negligable. To put that in perspective, the average state and local tax burden in the U.S. is 10.0% of personal income — for everything. SOMEONE has to pay.

  • The average cost of owning a car is something like $8,000-$10,000 including depreciation, insurance, gas, etc.

    Even if we paid for the whole system out of the farebox it would be half that. And mass transit’s good for the environment and pays livable wages to local union workers.

  • kt

    Regarding free transit in SF–did the consulting team include time (cost) savings that may come with a reduction of bus dwell times? I didn’t see this mentioned in the article. A busy bus line wastes a lot of time waiting for passengers to swipe cards or feed bills and coins. And they could pay for any additional cost to Muni with congestion pricing, no?