|
|
| Re: Doubling the subway fare in 1948 (1509996) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Doubling the subway fare in 1948 |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 14 21:25:43 2019, in response to Re: Doubling the subway fare in 1948, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Apr 14 19:59:18 2019. No, if you look at the income levels of workers in this country, the half century since I came of age has been a disaster. When I was growing up 86% of two adult families got by on a single salary; today that number is 6%. While I am fully supportive of womendoing something other than nanny/maid, in effect we have cut adult salaries by half forcing two FTE adults to support a family. In that context, the $7-$9 dollars per ride that are claimed by the transit agencies as the true cost is simply unsustainable for the working poor--who are statiscally the bulk of ridership.As to the idea that riders should pay "a good portion", I see public transit as analagous to fire, police, having sidewalks, as mark of civilisation. We do not expect to pay by the call to the police or fire services; we do not have toll booths on sidewalks or local streets (congestion charges not yet instituted IINM). Nor do we pay the direct electrical cost of the streetlights--they are part of the localcity or county services paid out of the general tax revenues. Given the economic disrup[tion which would occur if the full per ride cost were levied--drtastic ridership decline/decrease in the general economy as discretionary income disappears, I look at fares as purely a question of incentivizing or disincentivizing usage. I assume I don't need to explain that large cities muist have transit to remain functional. That said, what is the point of raising the fare rather than raising taxes on the overly rich who regularly fail to adequately contribute to the economy they skim the cream from? |
|
|
|