Hacker News Reader

Comment by martinald | Hacker News Reader

NYC subway fares are insanely cheap compared to the rest of the (developed) world. $2.75 single for any distance is incredibly low.

In London that same fare in rush hour would be anywhere between $4 and $15+ depending on the length of the journey (and NYC has much higher GDP per capita than London, plus the £ is on its arse at the moment). Even Berlin is marginally more expensive, in a much smaller & less economically prosperous city.

Keep in mind also that if you don't raise fares you are effectively cutting them because of inflation.

View on HN

> NYC subway fares are insanely cheap compared to the rest of the (developed) world. $2.75 single for any distance is incredibly low.

Europe isn't the only "developed world," mate. My morning commute in Hong Kong (which is roughly the same distance as Brooklyn to the LES or, say, King's Cross to Paddington) costs around $0.50. I can go all the way to mainland China for ~$3.00.

$2.75 is roughly the maximum fare in Tokyo (where an unlimited day pass can be had for $5.25), and $3.00 in Seoul will take you 145 kilometers away.

Calm down, he didn't say it was the absolute cheapest, just that it was cheap.

As a side note, there sure are a lot of people in China that get prickly about the definition of "developed".

I'm neither upset nor in China; just pointing out that if you expand your definition of the "developed world" beyond Europe and the US, the NYC MTA goes from "insanely cheap" to comparably priced or even mildly expensive :)

> My morning commute in Hong Kong

> I'm neither upset nor in China

The fuck

There’s an international border between Hong Kong and mainland China. A Chinese citizen needs a visa to come here and a Hong Kong citizen needs (what is basically) a visa to go there.

There may be a border, but it's still China. Did you miss the handover ceremony?

The maximum fare in Tokyo is nowhere near 2.75 USD. It's kind of a moot point because there is no such thing, lol. But for example the fare from Nippori to Kichijoji, which are both comfortably in Tokyo, is almost 5 USD.

Not exactly a valid comparison. Nippori to Kichijoji requires a change of systems (JR to Keio), and therefore multiple fares -- it would be like MTA+LIRR or MTA+PATH in NYC.

I'm only talking about the Tokyo Metro, not including transfers to JR or Toei, etc. The most expensive Tokyo Metro ticket is 310 JPY.

> $2.75 is roughly the maximum fare in Tokyo

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Tokyo, mate. 600 yen covers a day pass for the Tokyo Metro only, doesn't cover any JR lines at all. And even then, it is only for the local/regular express trains not commuter express trains. Additionally, Tokyo metro lines mostly only cover, well... the metro area. Not the suburbs or places where a lot of people live.

One way to work for me in Tokyo is about 500 yen and I live relatively close by, I just have to switch train operators twice (you get charged both on distance, and a flat fee by each train operator). Many of my coworkers who live out in the suburbs with families pay a lot more, but luckily most Japanese companies cover transportation fees as part of your salary.

As far as the rest of what you are talking about, you are very much ignoring the difference in economies between those places. 10 HKD goes a lot farther in Hong Kong than the equivalent would in New York.

> You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Tokyo, mate.

As I said elsewhere, I'm specifically only talking about the Tokyo Metro. I didn't include JR just like I wouldn't include the LIRR when talking about the NYC subway.

> Tokyo metro lines mostly only cover, well... the metro area. Not the suburbs or places where a lot of people live.

The same goes for the NYC subway. If I took the A train from one end to the other (uptown to queens), it's about 45km - only 5km more than going from Wakoshi to Shin-kiba, or riding the Yurakucho line end-to-end.

> 10 HKD goes a lot farther in Hong Kong than the equivalent would in New York.

I don't know how you're coming to this conclusion; Hong Kong is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

It's not insanely cheap compared to the rest of the developed world. Paris metro costs 1.90 Euros or more likely 1.49 if you buy books of 10 tickets or whatever.

I've been to plenty of developed world cities where the cost is under $3.

Paris has a zonal system though that goes up past €10, which NYC doesn't do. I'm not saying that 'central zone' fares aren't ~$3 in many cities, it's very odd to only have one zone and the fare be that low.

Keep in mind the distances that the subway does (and has express service on) make it similar to the RER in Paris more than the metro.

It's been a while since I took the Metro but I had been all over on it including to "end of the line" stops outside the boundaries of Paris and it was always the same price, EUR 1.40 (back then).

You might be thinking of the RER, that has different pricing.

I understand your point now though: it's the long fares that are insanely cheap, due to the flat pricing model. There are only a few comparison points I guess since very few cities have a "subway" system that large (some may have large transit systems that reach the suburbs, but they are often separate from the subway and with a different pricing structure).

I've always thought that fares should be more symbolic than a real source of revenue. They should definitely be low enough that even the poorest residents of the city can easily afford to travel on public transportation.

Why? Transport for London is close, if not past, covering operational (and some, but not all, very significant capital) expenditure from fares, property and advertising revenue. MTR in Hong Kong also is profitable, as I believe many Japanese networks are.

Being run entirely from fares means you are not at the whim of politicians for subsidies and grants that can change overnight with an election, which makes it very hard to think longer term.

I think this is what NYC should be aiming for - operationally covering its own operational costs from fares, advertising and property revenues with then state/federal grants for larger capital projects.

I have no argument with transit systems being self-sufficient, nor with fares providing a reliable source of funding. But what needs to happen, ethically, is for the relief valve to be elsewhere when it comes time to balance the budget. Maybe that means more advertising, maybe it means cutting costs. But it shouldn't be taken from the users of the system, because their demand is flexible (as we're seeing in NY), and the inflexible ones are the people who already have no alternative and are hit the hardest.

I think the conclusion from this sub-thread is that the London subway is insanely expensive compared to most of the rest of the world. There might be local reasons that afford it such price gouging power, like the lack of any reasonable transport alternative and the nature of London's road infrastructure, congestion and parking fees etc.

A fee increase to that level in other cities might have the opposite effect of reducing ridership and total revenues, against a largely fixed expense base, condemning the subway to a real "death subway".

The externalities of transport are massive, if a small number of people device to spend 15 minutes more in traffic to save the 8 pounds subway fare, the costs to society are simply astronomical because now everybody else has to spend those 15 minutes more too to get to where they need to go, even if they don't have the option of public transport for their route.

London is priced as it is because from this year or next, I forget which, it has no government money. All running costs must come from fares and advertising. Prices have changed accordingly.

Unlike roads which are entirely funded by government. So a comparison is always going to make "public transport" (ironic considering it's the transport not receiving public funds) look more expensive.

Ironically in London the trunk road network maintenance will be paid out of TfLs public transport fare budget, as TfL has a legal duty to maintain the major roads in London but has no government operating grant. Hopefully this will be resolved soon!

The other way to look at it is that it is a high quality reliable product that can charge a "premium" so to speak. While people in London complain, all lines will have CBTC in the next couple of years (the vast majority already do), running at 30-36trains per hour per direction across rush hour depending on the line. It is very rare for there to be major service issues on more than one or two lines at a time, comparing that to service status in NYC which often has dozens of lines with various issues.

My point really is that "even" £8 isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And that money going into the system allows it to work well.

The Underground is cheaper and/or more reliable when compared to the national rail network many use to commute into London. Ridiculously so. I think that contrast helps those in London value the Underground. Also the reason many choose to still live where there's a tube line.

It's also worth noting buses are much cheaper than the tube and quite accessible compared to a lot of places, though much slower.

Are you seriously asking why public transit should be affordable for poor people?

I guess they should just buy a car instead, right? Or live in Manhattan and walk to work?

No, not at all. It is a very blunt tool to say fares should be cheap so that poor people can afford them.

There are much better ways to do this, eg offer discounted trip cards to people on certain social security programs (Medicaid eligibility comes to mind). Price differentiation 101. This should be funded out of social security budgets, not transport budgets IMO.

Most of the people who ride the subway are not poor, and the average subway rider is probably richer than the average NYS taxpayer. Why subsidize the transportation of all the middle class and rich people who ride the subway every day?

Shuting down the subway would affect everyone. The poor are stuck on buses and the traffic would make their lives worse.

2.30$ CAD in Vancouver for 1.5h, you can easily cross the entire "city" on that price-tag.

Why is city in quotes?

I guess that's because the greater Vancouver area is made up of multiple localities officially designated as cities, even though in many cases there are no visible gaps between them anywhere other than on the map. The transport system is divided in zones, so travelling to, say, Coquitlam will cost you twice as much as travelling within the Vancouver downtown.

I believe London's GDP per capita is comparable to NYC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com