How Much Will Fares Rise Without Closing the MTA Capital Plan Gap? Try 25%

When the MTA’s chief financial officer warned last month that the likely price for failing to fund the authority’s capital plan was a 15 percent fare hike, the response was swift. Just 24 hours later, according to Newsday, MTA chief Tom Prendergast “backed away” from that scenario, calling it “unconscionable.”

Evidently the one thing worse than jacking the price of a Metrocard is letting the public know it’s in the works. But if a 15 percent boost would be unconscionable, what should we call a 25 percent increase?

That’s no idle question. I’ve made a careful calculation of the rise in subway and bus fares required to pay for NYC Transit’s share of the unfunded part of the authority’s 2015-2019 capital plan — assuming no other funding source comes along. My result: subway and bus passengers will see their fares go up 25 percent. Monthly unlimited Metrocards will shoot up by $29, nearly a dollar a day. Averaged across every fare medium — 30-day and 7-day unlimiteds, bonus pay-per-rides, and one-ride tickets — the price to ride a bus or train, which now averages $1.92 (taking into account unlimiteds, free transfers, senior discounts, etc.), will rise by 45 to 50 cents.

And that would be on top of the 7-8 percent biennial fare hikes the MTA has programmed indefinitely to cover rising operations costs.

The minimum wage in New York is set to reach $9.00 an hour at the start of 2016 (it’s now $8.75), so the $29 rise in the 30-day unlimited would eat up a half-day’s wages after taxes. In addition to that new burden on millions of low-income New Yorkers, a 25 percent increase in the transit fare would be projected to have these consequences:

  • A 3-4 percent drop in subway use;
  • A 4 percent deterioration in travel speeds in Manhattan’s Central Business District as some of those dropped subway trips switch to cars;
  • Nearly a billion dollars a year in costs from increased pollution, more traffic deaths and injuries, and more time lost sitting in traffic.

Of course, the MTA could avert the 25 percent fare hike by zeroing out the unfunded capital expenditures. But that would slow the uptake of vital upgrades like Communications Based Train Control to a trickle, with even more dire consequences: a 5 percent drop in subway ridership (usage goes down more with spotty service than with high prices), a 7 percent worsening in CBD travel speeds as even more commuters drive, and almost two billion dollars a year in environmental and time costs. And these figures don’t account for the lost farebox revenues that would necessitate their own fare rise.

Going back to the first scenario, in which capital improvements are paid for by a fare hike, here’s how I derived the 25 percent figure:

First, I priced the unfunded subway investments at $850 million a year, a figure tied to the Move NY toll-reform proposal, which earmarks $1 billion a year in net revenue to support the MTA capital plan. I assume that 15 percent goes to the authority’s commuter rail lines, leaving 85 percent, or $850 million a year, for subway improvements.

NYC Transit projects combined bus and subway farebox collections this year of $4.3 billion from record ridership of 2.45 billion trips. Deleting free transfers leaves 2.24 billion paid trips, implying an average fare per paying ride of $1.92. To raise an additional $850 million in farebox revenues, each of those 2.24 billion paying trips would have to cough up an additional $0.38 per ride.

But a fare hike of that magnitude would trigger an estimated 3 percent drop in transit ridership. While that may seem insignificant, the revenue hit across the entire farebox would be on the order of $150 million a year, necessitating another increment to the fare to make back the lost revenue. The total fare hike required to net the $850 million net revenue target turns out to be 47 cents per ride. Weighed against the current per-ride fare of $1.92, the increase is 24.6 percent.

Is bonding a way out? No. The debt must be serviced somehow. Indeed, the $850 million figure represents precisely that: it’s the annual debt service on the capital investment the subways require for modernization, but which Albany still has not funded.

Readers wanting more details may download the current version of my BTA spreadsheet (Excel file) and select Scenario 3 (“Baseline, but Fare Hike pays Subway Cap Invest”) via the pull-down menu in the “Results” tab. The figures in the text will be seen in the “Results,” “Taxes Instead” and “Cost Benefit” tabs.

  • KR

    Why only focus on the funding sources? What about union costs that are driving the need for additional funding sources? I don’t like how the unions are never identified as a serious obstacle to a sustainable public transportation system. The commuter rail system is so labor intensive it’s a joke. You could easily automate fare collection and eliminate a ton of labor costs. MNRR inspector’s don’t even do daily inspections, they just drive around. Most LIRR retirees cheat on disability. This isn’t free.

    At least ADDRESS the issue as well…

  • I gotta say, since I have been following the Facebook posts on “7 Train Blues”, people are angry. And judging from my trip today in by bike over the QBB I think there were a few more cyclists than normal AND there seemed to be more gridlock – these are both things that will happen as subway service continues to deteriorate. People will opt for alternate choices – bike (yeah, good) and taxis and private cars (not so good).

  • Joe R.

    We should probably move to a transit system primarily funded by income and dedicated taxes rather than by fares. This makes sense because we would get more money from those better able to pay. Transit fare increases are effectively a regressive tax increase on those least able to afford them. We should aim for a $1 base fare which would then be indexed to inflation. We could then increase marginal state and local tax rates on $200K+ incomes to fund mass transit. That’s in addition to taxes dedicated to mass transit like the MTA accessibility tax and (hopefully) congestion taxes.

    On a federal level, NYC should receive as much back in federal spending as it pays in federal income taxes. If we did this, we might receive enough funding for transit.

    We also need to look at reforming labor contracts. Perhaps we should tie any future raises both to productivity increases and rollbacks of previous unfunded pension increases.

    The bottom line is using fares to pay for a large portion of mass transit is a horrible idea. Raise the fares, you lose ridership. The city then pays hidden costs associated with more people driving.

    Seeing the issues subway riders are facing now makes me glad to work at home but nevertheless that’s not an option for many people. The subway is NYC’s life blood. It must be paid for somehow.

  • Fakey McFakename

    If Albany can’t agree to fund the MTA, it should at least let the City decide for itself through a referendum to increase taxes to fund capital investment.


Off-Peak Discounts for NYC Transit: An Intriguing Idea

Photo: cunningsue/Flickr Discounting off-peak transit service could be a boon to New York City’s transportation and quality of life, so long as revenues can be found to make up for the likely farebox shortfall. MTA chief Jay Walder floated the idea of off-peak discounts in an interview in today’s New York Times. While Walder didn’t […]

Guess Who Has a Lot to Lose From an MTA Meltdown: Drivers

Can you spot the flaw in this excerpt from the New York Times’ Saturday backgrounder on MTA chief Jay Walder’s pending departure for Hong Kong? [T]he future of New York’s cash-poor transit system, depended on by millions of riders a day, has now fallen directly to Mr. Cuomo, who must pick a successor. The passage […]

What’s the Secret to World-Class Transit Systems? Congestion Pricing

Top transportation officials from three global cities — London, Singapore and Stockholm — shared their experiences in expanding the use of transit at a panel at the Regional Plan Association’s annual conference last Friday. Eyeing those cities, it’s easy for New Yorkers to get jealous. “I was, in many ways, salivating,” said MTA chief Joe […]