If MTA's problem is decidedly not money, then why does the MTA need to double its fares?
The funding for the tracks and the other parts of the system come from different places, with the farebox only having to partially pay for their upkeep. And there's a lot of politics involved because the rest of the state of NY helps pay for the subway.
There is no reason for the NYC metro to be cheaper than the London Tube. They should raise fares to what the market will bear, and use the money for expansion or save it for a rainy day.
It might maximize ticket revenue if they priced some people out of taking the train. Doesn't maximize good for the city, or even revenue for the city if some marginal person decides to stay home instead of going to work.
So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?
> To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income).
Please provide examples of this working in practice.
It doesn't seem to work for healthcare, education, etc.
The places with "good" healthcare, education, transportation, internet, etc, don't make it expensive and then hand out vouchers to poor people. They make it free or so cheap everyone can afford it.
Most people can afford a $5 subway ticket.
> Please provide examples of this working in practice.
London Tube fares range from 2.4 to 5.1 pounds. That’s $3.50-$8.00 using typical exchange rates, versus just $2.75 for the NYC metro. Somehow non-rich people in London manage.