NYC Subway Fare over last 120 years adjusted for inflationChrisFromLongIsland t1_jcmgtt5 wrote
Reply to comment by User-no-relation in NYC Subway Fare over last 120 years adjusted for inflation by dust1990
The costs have gone up vs inflation because other things goods and services have experienced efficiencies and there has been very little efficiencies in the MTA even 100 years later.
The second part. Ridership has declined during covid so there are less fares but the MTA is incapable of cutting service or moving around the schedule to meet changes in demand due to the union.
SnooSongs2714 t1_jcomzxe wrote
Seems like they can’t cut service because of the public outcry too. Seems like there are always people at board meetings complaining about every modification of service. As a general rules, seems to me the public only want more service, not less.
User-no-relation t1_jcmnukl wrote
I mean it went from $1.75 100 years ago to $2.75. That's not a huge increase
edman007 t1_jcn4ste wrote
No, they are saying it was $1.75 for everything, now it's $8.25 and you pay a third ($2.75).
User-no-relation t1_jcn5qgt wrote
The graph is inflation adjusted
edman007 t1_jcn7paq wrote
Yes, it's inflation adjusted. But it's the cost to ride, not the per customer cost to operate. It's missing the second graph, the subsides provided by the government.
They were 0 when it started. It's absolutely not anymore. The MTA says fares only make up 23% of their budget. So MTA wide, the cost per ride is $11.96.
That $1.75 at the start was more than the cost per ride (since they were private companies with some amount of profit). The $2.75 for today is a tiny fraction of the cost.
lilBob1989 t1_jcnzgid wrote
Huh interestingly that is a lot closer to true average price on london tube
woodcider t1_jco3tbk wrote
We complain but a flat fare is such a good thing for commuters.
Powerful-Attorney-26 t1_jcruo9l wrote
It isn't the unions. It is that the city needs the level of service to function.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments