Fare Structure—thoughts from our e-mail discussion

Post Reply
Sallijane
Site Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:40 pm

Fare Structure—thoughts from our e-mail discussion

Post by Sallijane »

MTA
The MTA, the operator of the nation's largest transit system, instituted a schedule a decade ago of raising fare and toll revenues by about 4% every two years to keep pace with inflation. The authority's board members are slated to vote on increases to fares on Jan. 21 and on tolls next month.

The authority held a series of public hearings at the end of last year to receive comments on a long list of fare and toll proposals that include eliminating seven-day and 30-day unlimited MetroCards and raising the base subway and bus fare to $3. The proposals also include a flat fare for most commuter rail riders and varying tolls at bridges and tunnels based on time of day.

 90% + of all travel in the U.S. is by automobile; that's not going to change in my lifetime and, in fact, this percentage will get even higher as the U.S. population expands south and west.  Successful LRT lines have acquiesced to this reality and accommodated the auto with vast parking facilities at stations: think Denver, Portland, San Diego.  Some of the key metrics are ridership and consequent revenues compared with costs.  Ridership depends on numerous items - two of which are travel time and station accessibility to the rider's ultimate destination, ideally along with transit options to accomplish this absent an automobile.  In the end, a cost/benefit analysis, as Jim Blaze noted, is paramount.
Transit agencies that rely heavily on rider fares — which make up about 40% of NJ Transit's revenues — have been forced to make difficult budget decisions and will likely feel the effects of the pandemic for years to come, as commuters have been slow to return to buses, trains, light rail and other modes of public transportation.
NJ Transit avoided a doomsday budget this fiscal year in large part because of CARES Act funds, but agency officials faced looming questions about how they would fill gaps next year with a 62% drop in fare revenue anticipated, along with other expected decreases in revenue sources such as advertising and state subsidies.
The 60-year-old labor lawyer can't wait until he receives a Covid-19 vaccine and returns to his commute. But his days of working from an office five days a week are over. So too is his need for a $167 monthly bus pass.
"All sorts of things I thought I had to be in the city for, I don't," said Mr. Kolko, who noted that the pandemic has shown how much of his work, such as writing briefs and conducting legal research, can be done remotely.
Time-based passes such as weekly and monthly tickets were good value for people like Mr. Kolko who travel about 15 or more days a month. Now those discounted tickets don't make economic sense.
Officials at NJ Transit, New Jersey's statewide rail and bus system, say they hope to launch pilot programs in the coming months that could include rewards programs for regular riders or discounts for bulk purchases of tickets that don't expire. Other agencies have already launched new one- or three-day unlimited passes that better suit people's current commuting needs.
Some transit officials say the declining popularity of weekly and monthly tickets predates the pandemic as more workers gravitated toward working a four-day week or at least one day a week from home.
Between 2014 and 2019 the share of riders using monthly passes on Metra, Chicago's commuter-rail system, fell 6 percentage points to 59%, according to agency data. During the same period, the share of riders using 10-ride tickets grew 3 percentage points to 25%.
The share of sales of some weekly and monthly tickets have plummeted during the pandemic. Sales of 30-day unlimited MetroCards, used for travel on New York City's subway and bus systems, fell to 15% of ticket revenues in October, compared with 23% of revenues during the same month in 2019, according to the state-controlled Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
MTA board members will meet this week to consider possibly eliminating some time-based passes as part of an effort to raise revenue. Some board members are concerned the authority loses millions of dollars because of fraudulent use of such cards.
Transit advocates are concerned because they see the passes as essential for low-income riders. A recent survey by the MTA found riders with a household income of less than $50,000 accounted for 71% of seven-day unlimited and 47% of 30-day unlimited MetroCard sales.
"Time-based passes are like the key to the city," said Danny Pearlstein, a spokesman for advocacy group Riders Alliance. "They represent unparalleled access for basic needs to New Yorkers who have no other way of getting around."
Commuter-rail passes are usually bought by more affluent riders, many of them white-collar workers. The MTA runs two of the nation's busiest commuter-rail lines, Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, serving suburbs in New York and Connecticut. In recent years, monthly and weekly ticket sales accounted for almost half of fare revenues on both lines, according to agency figures.
Rich Andreski, Connecticut's bureau chief for public transportation, said the popularity of time-based passes is likely to decline after the pandemic when, as his department understands, many companies will allow workers to continue to telework at least a few days a week. A recent nationwide survey conducted by Pew Research Center found more than half of white-collar workers who can work from home would like to do so most or all of the time in the future.
Mr. Andreski said working from home even for a few days would be a welcome option for many Connecticut commuters, some of whom travel up to two hours to Manhattan.
"I don't know how an individual goes back to doing that five days a week," he said.
He said he would like Metro-North to reconsider how its existing 10-trip tickets are discounted and marketed.
Still, transit officials say raising tolls would yield more revenue than raising subway fares, while affecting travelers who tend to have higher incomes than most subway and bus riders. Unlike subway ridership, which has plateaued at around 30 percent of pre-pandemic levels, traffic on M.T.A.-controlled bridges and tunnels has rebounded to about 84 percent of normal.

As I see it, the present monthly passes encourage a regular ridership level, aiding allocation of crews and equipment.  That encouragement to travel every day is the objection to the present fare scheme with increased working at home.  This guaranteed usage is probably more important these days than the cash flow from not yet used tickets.  With today's ticketing, the reduction in the number of agents needed by discouraging single trip ticket purchases is likely negligible.  What discount is then justified?  Peak hour travel is already expensive to provide.

The greater question concerns parking at many stations, the present limit on NJT usage.  Regular commuters pay in advance for permits to spaces, when they can get them.  How much will they pay if they do not use the space every work day?  If they don't, will they have a space when they need it?  Is there a practical way of letting two riders share a space on alternating days (or some other arrangement)?  Do we need a web ticket exchange for parking?

Parking is another good factor to add into a discussion of revamped fares/payment.  Also first-/last-mile options that would make an auto less critical, particularly for those inside a 1/2-to-1-mile radius (not all are willing or able to walk that distance; I believe that 1/4 mile is considered standard), and also a somewhat larger circle of perhaps 5-mile radius.
I do think it would be wise to propose a level of service that makes sense under the current situation; minimum hourly in both directions for all NJT stations, especially the M&E; less peak service, minimum operating hours (06:00-00:00?). Decreased price monthly passes, as well as the availability of a substantially discounted multi-ride (people think differently about already purchased tickets vs new monetary outlay so it would increase ridership; sadly people are not accounting oriented) are good ideas.

Parking, however, is another story; most lots are township owned afaik and parking fees are set by the town and pay for maintenance of lots, which is not heavily effected by usage (it’s mostly the weather that tears up parking lots, and it doesn’t cost that much more to clear 80% of a lot than 40% on a snowy day).

Suggest a social media site where those who commute only a few days a week can find others in their town to share a monthly ticket with. That should blow the lid off the whole season ticket discount scam.

What about shorter time limits?  

What about combining bus and train ticket for auto-free commuting, “skip the parking fee”?  The biggest issue with that is that the schedule (particularly the bus schedule, which would be the change for former monthly train riders) would have to accommodate emergency trips home midday (well, not true emergencies; folks will always find a way to do those, even if expensive, but the ordinary unexpected events: kid sick at school, etc.).

Bring “off-peak” discounts back to encourage riding through the day.
Rationalize service to fill gaps (note COVID schedule from last year succeeded at that).
Set Hoboken + PATH fare equal to Penn Station fare to encourage its use.
Offer a 5-pack or 6-pack of discounted round trips during a month (being offered in L.A.).
Implement fare integration between modes, along with schedule integration.
Implement day pass to encourage discretionary riding.
Implement “week-ended” flat fare as done in Chicago and attempted in Boston.
Extend bus and light-rail transfer privileges with rail trips to single-trip riders.
Restructure fares as “origin to destination” to cover all modes and transfers as needed.

We need to consider the 90%, the regular commuters who have largely stopped commuting during the COVID epidemic.  As indicated in the article, many will not return as daily commuters but will still make frequent trips to Newark or NYC.  Others will return once they are vaccinated and feel safe about returning to their offices, assuming the offices reopen.

We should also consider 'discretionary' riders like my wife and me, who take transit by choice because they do not want to drive to NYC and transit is a better way to travel to NYC.

Regular frequent service is a must to attract those who have a choice when they travel.

NJT should restore the discount for 10-trip tickets and establish a new off-peak one-way ticket; the use of the former off-peak round-trip sometimes was unclear to those who used it infrequently.  As with current one-way tickets, these should be good until used.
I personally believe that the line of separation between NJT's Rail and Bus operations, allowing them to be competitors, is a major problem.  That is one of the facets of the Millburn Interlocking project I wanted to review.  Scheduling equipment and crews is an extremely difficult problem, even without coordination of services, but an overall management structure focusing on it is needed. 
I would like to know more about any issues around competition between buses and trains that might be relevant and other pro/con arguments before we formalize our position at the Monday meeting.

We should look into OPRA requests regarding scheduling assignments

Lot owners vary; some are town, some are NJT (many [most?] of which are operated by a private company, a pet peeve of mine [more flexibility and control when a public agency operates its own resources, as opposed to private companies, which at the end of the first contract can drastically increase prices]).
In our township there are two stations, Lyons and Basking Ridge. BR has a limited number of spots. The ones next to the track are owned by NJT and are free, but in normal times all are occupied by 7 am on weekdays. An equal number of spaces away from the track are controlled by the town, and annual permits are sold. The town used to offer $5 one day permits for its spaces, but stopped selling them because they had to be purchased in advance and the price was higher than at Lyons, so nobody bought them. There is also a back lot iwned by the town, which used to be free but the town atarted requiring permits after repaving it; the result was it's usually empty.

Lyons has a small lot adjacent to the station and a large lot across the track, built by NJT maybe 20 years ago.   The parking is managed by a private company. There are at least three sections, one for long term permits, one for daily payers - the price was a very reasonable $2, but may have increased. There is a third section labeled something like "resident daily parking," but I have never figured out what it is for - I know I can't park there; it may be an overflow for those with permits.

The bottom line of all this is that unless you have a permit you can never be sure of a parking space, particularly at the end of the AM rush or later, even when many permit only spots remain vacant. I have met people who don't use the train at all because of this. We often walk the 0.6 mi to the station rather than driving only to find no parking.

As I have posted before, the fare from my station via Hoboken plus PATH is already lower than the fare to NYP. The usual response is that riders from farther than, say, Summit don't count. 

restoring the off-peak fares, which are more likely to work for discretionary travellers than regular commuters, at least currently.

I like the thought of a frequency-based discount, with a great deal of flexibility in end time, or unlimited duration.  Advance purchase should confer at least a small advantage, in part it makes sense that the further the time delay, the greater the discount.  I would not want a large penalty, if any, for same-day purchase, other than the current surcharge for cash on a train, when there is a working machine at the station (appropriately waived when the machine is broken).
The whole commuting paradigm evolved in an era when there was no efficient telecommunications and railroads were built on the expectation that they could make money from the farebox alone. Now telecom can enable  remote office work, and few would even consider commuting if the enormous government subsidies did not prop up that lifestyle.

My co-workers and I have many times benefitted from casual conversations and spur of the moment meetings.  I do not consider water coolers, cafeterias, coffee pots, and the ability to eavesdrop to be enemies of productivity.  It all depends on the task at hand.

But many will be considering whether the social environment of the office is worth 15 hours a week of their time, $500 a month of cash, and, often, a second car to drive to the station (plus pay for parking).

Some degree of in person will be required by all people who hold jobs that generate a justified paycheck; some might require a meeting every two months; some might require a meeting every other day. In person communication functions on a level that has been clearly demonstrated to be unobtainable virtually by this pandemic, even if we can hobble along on it to greater or lesser degrees.

If it is 35% of what it was, you could probably accommodate most or all of the people who engage in it and drive an automobile within the existing automotive infrastructure, and the trains will run nearly empty. If it is 90%, they would still need trains, but at a reduction in capacity. If people insistently still cling to 9-17, peak commuting will still be a thing. It is possible, though, that it may become logical to run a train at 5:30, a train at 6:30, and half hourly from there until 20:00, and then a train at 21, 22, 23, and 00, and that will do it. 

I'd propose a radical change to fare policy and to the fares themselves.  This might be the perfect time to test it as well.

If one goes back to the 1950s (and before) there was a solid difference in approach used by local transit systems as opposed to railroads.  These were historical, dating back to the introduction of service in the 19th century.  Fares on transit systems tended to be flat, with extra amounts being paid if there were zones for very long trips.  There were no multi-ride fares--no weeklies, monthlies and rarely ten-trip ones.  Transfers were free or cost a relatively modest amount.  You paid the same per trip, no matter how often you traveled and at what time.  On the railroad side there were steep discounts for those riding every day, with non-transferable monthly and weekly tickets.

The City of Philadelphia created the Passenger Service Improvement Corporation (PSIC) to reduce the loss of passengers on the commuter services of the Pennsylvania and Reading rail lines, which served passengers in the outskirts of the City, but still within the municipality.  Today's SEPTA lines involved were the two to Chestnut Hill and Fox Chase, and the inner portions of the lines to Norristown and Trenton.  PSIC determined that the fares and frequency could have an effect, and slashed the former to 30 cents and began to run hourly service.  Multi-ride tickets were eliminated, as there was no longer a reason to offer any discounts to fares that already were low.  Oddly, in my feeble attempts, I could find very little on the internet about this "radical" program.
SEPTA inherited several earlier programs designed to bolster commuter rail service. The city had begun subsidizing service on both the Pennsylvania and Reading railroads within the city limits in 1958 in return for a flat 30-cent fare and 10-cent transfers to the PTC system. This program was given a permanent administrative structure with the creation of the Passenger Service Improvement Corporation of Philadelphia (PSIC) in July 1960. The city also purchased new rail cars and financed the electrification of the Reading line to Fox Chase in 1966.
The results were as expected:  https://www.newspapers.com/clip/1216615 ... northeast/
To quote a part of the article:  "Operation Northwest, on the Chestnut Hill lines of the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads, this year carried 715,000 more riders than 12 months immediately prior to the program.  The total, 3,690,000, represented a 24 percent gain in riders, . . .

"Under the program fares were cut to 30 cents, plus a 10-cent fare for feeder bus service.  The city paid a subsidy of $340,000 thisj past year to cover the cost of increased service."  For further information seehttps://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/10785/Kobrick_umd_0117E_11424.pdf?sequence=1, starting with page 138.

To extend subsidized service into the suburbs, Philadelphia joined with Bucks, Chester and Montgomery Counties to form the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Company (SEPACT) in September 1961. Delaware County, the stronghold of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company, remained outside the compact. SEPACT conducted three short-term pilot projects with federal matching funds. SEPACT I improved commuter rail service to Lansdale and Hatboro on the Reading and to Levittown on the PRR.

SEPACT instituted zones because of the longer distances, with the same result.  But instead of continuing subsidies, SEPTA was set up to take over transportation operations and [in my opinion] its concentration was on urban transit within the City, and the commuter services again were taken over by railroad personnel with the same old, same old railroad ideas.  One-way fares rose and the system reverted to the old paradigm that included deep discounts.

I think now is the time to press for:  1) simple low flat zone fares (at a rate equivalent to the cost of each rider on a monthly tickets) and 2) merger of bus and rail fares and zones with free transfers (or nominal cost ones).  As for off-peak, if the fares are low enough and the ridership is spread out timewise (which is probably now the case due to COVID), they would not be necessary; but they could always be instituted if peak ridership increases greatly.  In other words the system should go to the simple, historical transit approach.
As for commuters coming back, we can be sure that some will, but we can also be sure than others will not.  I have predicted since last March that about 2/3 will come back and 1/3 will not.  As working "remotely" becomes more common, traditional commuting at the historic "peak-hour" may come back to a lesser extent than I had previously expected.  Many commuters disliked having to make the trip five days a week with the crowds, and employers can save money on office space if fewer employees occupy it every day.  There may be less need for private offices in the future and more need for conference rooms and other shared spaces.  I could see a lot of jobs requiring a trip to the office once or twice a week, but not many jobs requiring five-day commuting.  

It also seems reasonable that the historic service peak may no longer be necessary, at least as it had been.  There is an interesting experiment at Caltrain in San Francisco, which once had the sharpest commuter peak of any line in the country, at least if the schedule they ran is any indication.  Today, they have eliminated the commuting peak entirely.  They run trains every 30 minutes from 5:00 in the morning, until mid-evening, with a few all-stops locals to finish the service day.  They also run hourly locals on the week-end, augmented from the former 90-minute week-end headways.  On weekdays, each train runs skip-stop to save some time, but every station is served at least every hour.  Some are served by all trains, which is approximately half-hourly.
 Easy-to-understand fares, neutral as to mode, are easy for riders, who no longer have to plan their travel strategically to capture discounts.
But serendipity only happens if they are in on the same days.  Any company dependent on sales to, or contracts from, another better have someone available when the customer wants information.  The place I worked here in NJ went to a nine day 80 hour biweekly schedule, which we loved.  Our few customers didn't.

Does anyone else think there will be a rebellion against the present practice of being on-call 24/7?
M.T.A. officials last year laid out a variety of options for how a hike could be applied, including raising the base fare from $2.75 to $2.85, increasing the surcharge for buying a new MetroCard from $1 to $3, and eliminating seven- and 30-day unlimited passes or raising their prices.
On commuter rails, the possibilities included raising the price for single-ride and 10-trip tickets by more than 4 percent while keeping the price of monthly and weekly passes the same, or overhauling ticket prices entirely to reflect where trips begin and end.
But in recent weeks, transit advocates and a growing number of state and city elected officials warned that raising fares would strain the essential workers who tend to be lower-income people of color, would do little to raise revenue with ridership at record lows, and could discourage riders from returning to the system as city life rebounds.
“A fare hike is at best a flat tax, but at the moment it’s highly regressive because it’s essential workers and low-income New Yorkers without cars who are still taking transit while white-collar workers stay home and tourists say away,” said Danny Pearlstein, a spokesman for Riders Alliance, an advocacy group.
Tolls have historically subsidized public transit ridership, and the possibility of raising them has received far less public backlash than increasing fares. But some drivers have warned that they, too, are financially strapped.
Subway ridership remains only at 30% of pre-COVID levels while bus ridership is at 50%.  Ostensibly this fare delay was done to give a benefit to those "essential workers" who depend on mass transit to access their employment sites and have no other means of transport.  With the expected single ride subway fare to rise from $2.75 to $3.00, the MTA raise was expected to generate $79 million.  The agency is still asking for the remaining $8 billion from the Biden administration and it is likely that, with New York's very own Chuck Schumer now the leader of the Senate, this and other metropolitan transportation projects will receive kinder treatment.  To add a modicum of additional revenue, there is a strong likelihood that the MTA will boost bridge and tunnel tolls and the discounts on the Verrazano Bridge will be reduced.  Why now?  Simple.  They can do it because motorists are vulnerable and the MTA can get away with it.  If you've driven on any metropolitan artery, it is clear that vehicular traffic is still quite robust.  NPR reported that Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) declined some 17% in 2020, but accidents increased 18%.  The reason given was what with less traffic, speeding was more prevalent and the radio station gave statistics on how many summons occurred for speeds over 100 mph!  All this on public roadways.
Here are some questions that may stimulate discussion and examination of your proposal.  (This is something I've never seriously looked at.):

It is my impression that NJT-Rail has very short zones, with few stations in each.  Is that true?  Are the bus zones similar?  How does that compare with Pennsylvania?

Are there any figures on how many passengers use both the train and a bus to travel on a trip in NJ?  Other than a few very busy stations, where can you do this conveniently?

New Jersey farebox recovery is about 50%, isn't it?  While low compared to some other systems, it is a large amount and the state budget is a bit tight.  How does that 50% compare with with the original and current Pennsylvania experience?  (I am uncertain of which of your numbers to use for the subsidy and the base fare versus the number of riders, as the dates of the data you give may differ.)

Have there been any studies of what to expect on NJT with such a fare plan?  How did ridership change when the off-peak discount was eliminated?  How price-dependent is the monthly ticket usage, based on previous fare increases?

As for off-peak discounts, based on the four stations I've used on the M&E, the only additional weekday off-peak riders are likely to come from those who live within walking distance.  On weekends, parking is often available, but reliable one-hour interval service (limited now by track capacity) was not.  I hope that the availability of more crews improves that reliability.

Are there any figures on how many passengers use both the train and a bus to travel on a trip in NJ?  Other than a few very busy stations, where can you do this conveniently?
I would do this all the time on weekends from Woodcliff Lake (now finally less necessary)—11A to either Park Ridge or Hillsdale, or coming home, reverse. 

If I am going to Newark from Paramus, I will sometimes take the bus to Hackensack and leave from either Anderson Street or Essex Street (depending on bus; either 752 to State St. or 168 to Anderson Street; sometimes the 76 bus from Hackensack makes more sense, though it takes longer [connection time at Secaucus is a factor]).

I very often would start a trip on train from Woodcliff Lake and wind up on a bus from a destination station to an event location. 
There are no real bus connections at three of the four M&E stations I have used as far as I know.  As I've mentioned, the South Orange jitney is very convenient for us (if it returns).

the possibilities included raising the price for single-ride and 10-trip tickets by more than 4 percent while keeping the price of monthly and weekly passes the same,
I am glad that they scuttled this; if single- and 10-ride tickets go up, the passes should go up proportionally, otherwise you are giving a greater benefit to those with the funds to lay out a larger amount up front.
There is a bus stop at Essex Street that is basically across the parking lot (3 rows of cars, basically at the doorstep); at Anderson Street, within a couple of blocks one can get to a variety of bus lines, off hand, 168, 175 are the 2 that I would tend to use, but both stops are served by other lines as well.    (780 comes to mind)  The 752 is better for connecting with buses, though Essex Street is walkable.
Monthly tickets could be started on any day of the month.  The LIRR offered unrestricted tickets, usable on any day of the week, and restricted tickets usable only on the same five days of the week for the whole month, typically Monday - Friday, the days most people worked.  Unrestricted tickets presented on weekends had to be signed and countersigned like weeklies.

When the LIRR went to flash pass commutation tickets, the restricted monthly ticket was discontinued and the new tickets were sold at that price level.  Weekend use often required signatures, with signed tickets checked on weekdays...


The LIRR started a zone fare system about the same time and there were many zones.  This was reviewed and the number of zones reduced by at least 50%.  My station was on the Long Beach Branch, which became a single zone for all its stops.

In most cases on the Morristown Line, each zone is a different station with a different fare.  It would make sense to make one or two zones for all station between East Orange and Summit, another for Chatham-Morris Plains, third for Mount Tabor through Netcong and a final zone for Mt Olive and Hackettstown; similarly the Gladstone Branch would be a single zone.  Montclair-Boonton Line would be two zones: Watsessing through MSU and Little Falls through Netcong.  If NJT didn't want to go that far, at least they should reduce the number of zones by at least 50%.

To make the zone-reduction more palatable to riders, the fare for each new zone would be the LOWEST fare from the old zone system.

They'd also have to determine how to handle rides within and between the new zones.  These should have a standard fare for one, two, or however many zones there ended up being, regardless of which line - a local ticket would only indicate the number of zones it covered.

Also to be addressed: the weird fare differential between tickets to NYP vs Hoboken, which is different for nearly station on the ex-Lackawanna lines and increases as distance from Hoboken increases.


A really out-of-the-box idea:

NY-MTA, since it controls Metro-North, LIRR, and the subways, issues commuter railroad tickets combined with Metro-Cards, so one ticket does the work of two.

As a first step, NJT and PATH could issue a joint ticket for rides through Newark Penn or Hoboken.  Once that's proven to work, NJT could try to address the issues involved in issuing joint tickets with MTA operations.


Some commuter railroads offer 'guaranteed ride home' options so riders can get home in emergencies at times when their peak-hour-oriented services don't run.

The MTA's LIRR and MetroNorth non-commutation fare offerings already provide a base policy for the coming year, which NJT could follow, having stupidly taken out all the off-peak discounts.http://web.mta.info/lirr/about/TicketIn ... rt2019.pdf

5 consolidated distanced-based fare zones in the most heavily subscribed area --- four suburban, one city (out of 8 total).
Most distant fare zone (9-Ronkokkoma/Pathogue/Pt. Jeff) is 184% of closest (3-LittleNeck/QnsVillage/Rosedale).

100% One-way peak period tickets (assumes there will be a peak demanding above-base capacity).
~73% Off-peak one-way tickets
~61% Off-peak 10-Trip tickets (15% off off-peak one-way)
50% Senior/disabled one-way tickets

One glaring error: Atlantic Ave and Hunters Point Ave are priced the same as NYP.

Of all the various suggestions, I like Jack's the best.  Since it has historical precedent, one might consider the advocate community making this suggestion and institute it on one or two commuter lines - the M&E because of closely situated stations and say, the North Jersey Coast Line because of irs seasonal nature (more so than most) and summer city riders who can walk to many of tits seaside resort communities.  Joe's comment on the reduced fare zones on LIRR and MNCR could lead the way.

Overlay this with a transit version of EZPass applicable to all metropolitan bus, rail, LRT systems and operators and we'd have a true advance.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

How long working at home will be in vogue is anyone's guess.  With a partner, kids, schools, dogs and cats and chores all combined in one household, eventually people will need a bit of space.  This is deep into in sociological territory and there is no roadmap.  Many of these fare level suggestions, barring real world evidence, are totally anecdotal.  Only strict implementation will lead to a solution.
If the result is revenue neutral, just what is the benefit of zone fares now that agents don't need to have a huge selection of tickets on hand or look up fares?  Is this a solution in search of a problem?  What is wrong about charging by distance?
Gary noted that the difference in fares between NYP on NJT on the one hand, and via Hoboken plus PATH on the other, increases with distance;  but he didn't say which one costs more.

My calculations for Dover as an example:

One way to NYP direct: $15.25
Hoboken plus PATH: $14.35
(Using PATH 10-trip card)

Monthly, per ride:
NYP direct: $10.23
Via HOB: $10.07

Assumes 10 trips per week, does not allow for any holidays.

There is nothing in the NJT timetable description of commutation tickets that says they are restricted to a single individual. PATH does say this for their unlimited tickets, which makes their 30-day ticket a very poor investment for the average commuter: it reduces the cost of a 10-trip alternative from $2.60 to $2.57.
Joe called the equal LIRR fares for NYP, Atlantic Terminal, and LI City an error; but for many years there was such a differential, and it was deliberately eliminated by the LIRR.

The LIRR charges prohibitive fares from close-in stations and especially for local travel in the Queens and Broolyn core, but that's another subject. NJT does not have many close-in destinations, but a one-way to Secaucus is $4.25, a LIRR to Woodside is $6.50 off peak, $9.00 peak. At least I think so; both NJT and LIRR have made it fiendishly difficult to find fares online. For NJT you have to find (not easy) the point to point trip planner (the one that combines buses, trains, and walking) and for LIRR I was never able to find any fares at all and had to resort to a year-old paper timetable, since I have not been able to find any LIRR timetables in NYP since Covid. Fares have disappeared from all the regular schedule lookup pages.

The idea is to have a very simple fare structure, where patrons pay only for the rides they take and the distances (in a broad sense--zones, not exact mileages) that they travel.  Right now trains and to a great extent buses, are relatively empty so time of day does not matter.  Nor, with many working from home, should the issue of frequency of usage be terribly important.  

Also, there was no attempt here to define zones and fares; that can be left to the nit-pickers.  The idea is to make choosing to use mass transit as simple as possible; with the rules being very user-friendly.  Just as one example, to avoid the expense of investing big bucks into tickets for both buses or trains when on one day he or she uses a different mode than normal.

Such a system can be created to be revenue neutral, or it can increase or decrease revenue.  That is the decision of the politicians, who advocates also try to influence.  But common sense and experience indicate that it would be very attractive to the riding public.

Parts of this concept have been in use in Europe for a very long time.
I can understand why New York City, with closely spaced stations and bus stops and many users who are not making simple round trips to distinct locations would use a single fare or, in the past, just a few extra fare locations.  I do remember my first trip to London and the difficulty in deciding just what ticket I needed so I could exit without a hassle.  (The color-coded route map with all route signs in the station  passageways the same gray was more confusing.)   Washington's Metro, with stored fare cards and prominently displayed maps and prices where you bought your card, was much simpler.  The 'Add Fare' machines let you correct for a shortage.

In an earlier Washington, I recall how cheated I felt when I didn't get off with the herd and rode an extra block into Maryland and a new fare zone.  Here in New Jersey, few cities have multiple rail stations.  What is the difference between learning what zone your destination station is in and then the fare to that zone versus looking up the station and being told the fare?  If the zone boundaries are fixed and encompass many towns, there will be some travelers (and towns) who are winners and others losers in a quest for equity.  The smaller the zones, the closer to today's quasi-mileage-based fares.  Zone fare systems seem to be more for the benefit of ticket agents then passengers.  Could someone using the LIRR or MN frequently to multiple destinations explain their appeal (privately, if desired).

An electronic fare collection system with a smartphone could have you load the end points of a trip and let the computer take it from there.  A TVM is now in your pocket, with automatic billing.  Time of day, total usage, and other special fare plans could be applied after the fact, and no money would be lost due to unexpected events that prevent expected trips.  (GPS or station-based schemes could keep you honest.)  I probably would still prefer paper tickets.
I read a lot of ideas in the discussion of commute ticket alternatives. Some of the solutions were necessary before the pandemic. To proceed on this topic, we need to have good epistemology. We need to identify what we do know and what we do not know.
Post Reply