Bi-Annual Fare Increase

No suspense here as fares go up again and the MTA says we should be thankful it is only 2% per year
Of course, this is done after Junior is re-elected and now myself and all other commuters will need to dig deeper in their pockets

http://www.mta.info/news-fares-tolls-bo ... -increases" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The public was told in 2013 that there would be another 4% raise in 2015. It has nothing to do with the elections. No surprise here.

I just love watching the news when they talk to people and they complain that service never gets better after the fairs increase. Don't these people know the cost of anything goes up when more things need to be maintained? Don't they realize that they live in a place where the cost of living is not going to go down? Don't they know what "capitol" means? Obviously this "me me me, now now now" generation can't comprehend that things need money to stay at even a certain level or else there are real issues.

Admin Note: Content redacted in its entirety.

Admin Note:

Content redacted in its entirety. (Largely a quote from the previous post).

SwingMan wrote:I just love watching the news when they talk to people and they complain that service never gets better after the fairs increase... Don't they realize that they live in a place where the cost of living is not going to go down?

I would wager that what is bugging more commuters about the latest few rounds of fare hikes is the fact that what you said is actually not true. Fare hikes, especially these last few and this upcoming one, have actually exceeded the change in the rate of inflation over the same period of time, meaning that the cost of things are going up, but the cost to ride the LIRR is going up even more.

The blue line in this graph shows how much a Zone 1 to 7 monthly commutation ticket has cost at each point in time from 1974 through today, and up to the next fare increase on 3/22. In 1974, the cost of that monthly was $56. The orange line in this graph shows how much $56 was worth, adjusted for inflation for every year since 1974. For the most part, the fare stays below the inflation line, but, with the last couple of fare hikes, the fare is now above the inflation line. In recent years, the slope of the fare line is considerably steeper than the inflation line. To show this, the green line shows the fare in 2000, $154, then that amount adjusted for inflation for the last fifteen years. The fare line is way above the 2000 inflation line. With the next fare hike, the difference between the two lines would be $72, which is a huge disparity:


So what are commuters getting for that exigent disparity? From the commuter's point of view, they are not getting increased service, they are not getting better reliability, and they are not getting better communication during disruptions. One would think that with the big disparity in fares, that reliability would be increasing along with the exigent fare increases, but that's not the case. The trendline for OTP is downward sloping--and decreasing quite considerably. I think it's a little bit ridiculous to ridicule commuters for wanting something more for what they are paying when the fare is increasing considerably more than the cost of living...

SwingMan wrote:Don't these people know the cost of anything goes up when more things need to be maintained? Don't they know what "capitol" means? Obviously this "me me me, now now now" generation can't comprehend that things need money to stay at even a certain level or else there are real issues.

Perhaps I haven't been paying attention close enough over these last couple years, but what constitutes "more things need to be maintained" over the last 10 years? Has the LIRR opened up any new stations, branch lines, or expanded their fleet since 2005?

And, yes, I do know what "capitol" means. It's the building that Congress meets in down in Washington D.C., I think the term you were looking for is "capital."

lirr42 wrote:

SwingMan wrote:Don't these people know the cost of anything goes up when more things need to be maintained? Don't they know what "capitol" means? Obviously this "me me me, now now now" generation can't comprehend that things need money to stay at even a certain level or else there are real issues.

Perhaps I haven't been paying attention close enough over these last couple years, but what constitutes "more things need to be maintained" over the last 10 years? Has the LIRR opened up any new stations, branch lines, or expanded their fleet since 2005?

And, yes, I do know what "capitol" means. It's the building that Congress meets in down in Washington D.C., I think the term you were looking for is "capital."

LIRR42:

Long time, no see. It is indeed agreeable to see you again. If I put the above comments in perspective, if you buy a new car certain things will not need maintenance until the car ages. As they age, the cost to maintain them increases. The same goes for the railroad. As things age and are abused with the onslaught of trains, it costs more to maintain the line. Inspections become more frequent. I'm sure you get the gist.

Additionally, the FRA has been making their presence felt by instituting more rules and regulations as they try to ward of even the thought of anything going wrong. Naturally, this never works and also increases costs.

ThirdRail7 wrote:LIRR42:

Long time, no see. It is indeed agreeable to see you again. If I put the above comments in perspective, if you buy a new car certain things will not need maintenance until the car ages. As they age, the cost to maintain them increases. The same goes for the railroad. As things age and are abused with the onslaught of trains, it costs more to maintain the line. Inspections become more frequent. I'm sure you get the gist.

Additionally, the FRA has been making their presence felt by instituting more rules and regulations as they try to ward of even the thought of anything going wrong. Naturally, this never works and also increases costs.

Mr. ThirdRail, it's good to hear from you too. I lurk occasionally, but I've been a bit busy recovering for the headaches that these forums often bring.

Perhaps you'll allow me to put it a different way. In general, there has been no net change in the size of the railroad. While the things on the railroads have naturally changed over the course of time, there's still been no significant expansion in track miles, stations, or passenger rail cars in the last 10 years (there's actually been a net decrease in the first, now that the LIRR no longer operates over the Lower Montauk). Infrastructure maintenance is cyclic... if you have 1,000 miles of rail, you replace 100 miles each year, so each mile of rail on the system gets replaced every 10 years. Similarly for car maintenance, you budget along the mean, so you take extra money you save when the cars are young and relatively problem-free and put that away for when the cars are not young and relatively problem-free. I don't see a real reason for a significant deviation from that... as long as they have been doing things properly all along, this is no explanation for a significant increase in costs beyond the change due to inflation (which is taken into account with the green line in the graph above).

ThirdRail7 wrote:LIRR42:

Long time, no see. It is indeed agreeable to see you again. If I put the above comments in perspective, if you buy a new car certain things will not need maintenance until the car ages. As they age, the cost to maintain them increases. The same goes for the railroad. As things age and are abused with the onslaught of trains, it costs more to maintain the line. Inspections become more frequent. I'm sure you get the gist.

Additionally, the FRA has been making their presence felt by instituting more rules and regulations as they try to ward of even the thought of anything going wrong. Naturally, this never works and also increases costs.

Mr. ThirdRail, it's good to hear from you too. I lurk occasionally, but I've been a bit busy recovering for the headaches that these forums often bring.

Perhaps you'll allow me to put it a different way. In general, there has been no net change in the size of the railroad. While the things on the railroads have naturally changed over the course of time, there's still been no significant expansion in track miles, stations, or passenger rail cars in the last 10 years (there's actually been a net decrease in the first, now that the LIRR no longer operates over the Lower Montauk). Infrastructure maintenance is cyclic... if you have 1,000 miles of rail, you replace 100 miles each year, so each mile of rail on the system gets replaced every 10 years. Similarly for car maintenance, you budget along the mean, so you take extra money you save when the cars are young and relatively problem-free and put that away for when the cars are not young and relatively problem-free. I don't see a real reason for a significant deviation from that... as long as they have been doing things properly all along, this is no explanation for a significant increase in costs beyond the change due to inflation (which is taken into account with the green line in the graph above).

I trust that most readers, employees and passengers agree that the LIRR, as a government entity is not managed for financial efficiency. That being said, the contrasting of fare increases against "cost of living" data prepared by the government is far from a credible comparison.

Just about everyone agrees that the "cost of living" data far under-represents the government's inflation of the money supply. It also reflects the lower consumer prices gained from replacing domestic goods and consumer products with those produced overseas by slave and under-compensated labor.

Operating and maintaining a railroad, like most public infrastructures, does not benefit from the "efficiencies" of imports or off shore labor. It is nearly 100% commodity based, and the prices of commodities has and continues to soar relative to the government's "cost of living".

Skilled labor rates in virtually all heavy industry have increased 2% - 3% per year in addition.

There are several paths to beating down fares and expense and neither one is likely. Management can be improved. Privatization can be explored. Operating inefficiencies, including a ridiculously antiquated fare collection system can be corrected. Or you can start buying steel and materials from Third World suppliers. We have seen how that worked out with the Indian wheels which were scrapped to the tune of $7 million and the Chinese joint bars that caused seven derailments.

This is inflation, plain and simple. Want lower fares and taxes? Vote our dollar inflators out of office.

The graph is interesting, although to give the MTA credit it does show that for most years fares have risen at a rate lower than the rate of inflation based on 1974 prices and has just recently passed that.

I agree the rate of increase is much higher since 2000 but there's another equation to be factored in. The fares do not cover all the costs of operating the service. The real cost is close to double what the rider pays. The difference is made up with cash subsidies from NYS. So the fare increases could be a result of cash operating subsidies not maintaining pace with rising costs. In fact I believe that's true, that has been part of the MTA's strategy; riders must pay an increasing percentage of the cost of transporting them through fares.

LongIslandTool wrote:I trust that most readers, employees and passengers agree that the LIRR, as a government entity is not managed for financial efficiency.

And why is that? Other governmental entities are required to make an effort to be more efficient, or at least, not set fire to money in the manner that this one seems to do often enough.

LongIslandTool wrote:That being said, the contrasting of fare increases against "cost of living" data prepared by the government is far from a credible comparison.

Just about everyone agrees that the "cost of living" data far under-represents the government's inflation of the money supply. It also reflects the lower consumer prices gained from replacing domestic goods and consumer products with those produced overseas by slave and under-compensated labor.

Operating and maintaining a railroad, like most public infrastructures, does not benefit from the "efficiencies" of imports or off shore labor. It is nearly 100% commodity based, and the prices of commodities has and continues to soar relative to the government's "cost of living".

The graphs indicate headline inflation (Consumer Price Index, specifically the C-CPI-U), which is "A measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food and medical care. The CPI is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined basket of goods and averaging them; the goods are weighted according to their importance. Changes in CPI are used to assess price changes associated with the cost of living." (link). It represents how much it costs to buy a selection of things, largely a selection of essential items. It doesn't measure 'frivolous' things like televisions, computers, or automobiles, which do indeed benefit from the "efficiencies" of imports or off shore labor. It does measure things like food, however, which for the most part in the United States is not imported and therefore does not benefit from the efficiencies of imports or off shore labor (imports only account for 17% of all food Americans consume). Similarly, medical care also does not benefit significantly from the "efficiencies" of imports or off shore labor (with a few exceptions, individuals importing things like prescription drugs from out of the country is illegal). And, as you have made clear, transportation also does not benefit the "efficiencies" of imports or off shore labor. It's the cost of living, not the cost of having a large TV, a fancy car, or a house filled with a bunch of imported junk.

LongIslandTool wrote:There are several paths to beating down fares and expense and neither one is likely. Management can be improved. Privatization can be explored. Operating inefficiencies, including a ridiculously antiquated fare collection system can be corrected. Or you can start buying steel and materials from Third World suppliers. We have seen how that worked out with the Indian wheels which were scrapped to the tune of $7 million and the Chinese joint bars that caused seven derailments.

This is inflation, plain and simple. Want lower fares and taxes? Vote our dollar inflators out of office.

There's probably a million and one ways to cut excess from the system. Labor and capital construction likely represent the most wasteful areas and the ones most in need of reform. Like you said, correcting the current fare collection systems by moving to a Proof of Payment system that works well in Europe, getting rid of work rules and staffing requirements, cutting back on wasteful overtime practices, etc., etc., etc. But, last time I checked, the last time the MTA wanted to do something like this in 2014 the unions vehemently opposed to anything other than a large pay increase... Like I said over the summer, I find it curious that the labor unions seem so eager to undermine the financial stability of the very agency that employs them... There's lots of waste elsewhere too, don't get me wrong, but the judge isn't going to let you off for robbery just because the next guy is on trial for murder.

For the majority of people in a capitalist society, if the company that is employing them is losing money that year, chances are that person is not going to get a raise (or, more than a very minimal one). And that's the way it works the vast majority of people out in the real world. There are those few, however, that work for entities that don't see money as an object. (This is a problem that is plaguing many aspects of government, not just the MTA). Like I said over the summer, enjoy it while it lasts. There's going to become a point where it will be impossible to maintain the current level of government inefficiency and waste, and changes will come by way of hell or high water. Unfortunately, it's probably going to take a significant recession or depression for people to realize that, but it's going to be coming sooner rather than later if we stay on the current track. The same thing happened to the healthcare industry several decades back...it just became impossible to maintain the level of waste that was in that industry, so the government stepped in and cracked down on everything. If the unions were smart, they would start cutting back on the waste now when they have some power to do it on their own terms and not wait for the government to come in and do away with everything during a time of economic crisis. You can only strangle the golden goose so much before it drops dead.

Also keep in mind that running a public transportation system is far from the most essential thing for the government to do. It's a nice thing to have, but it's not critical. If the state were to just give up and abandon the LIRR it would certainly inconvenience some, probably cause a decent increase in congestion, and probably a slouch in economic activity, but would it be the end of the world? Nope. People will quickly adjust once they start losing notable amounts of time or money (i.e. move closer to their work, or move their work closer to them), and with telecommuting becoming an option for more and more people, doing something like that may only become more and more attractive with time. Is the LIRR a nice thing to have? Absolutely. Do I want it to stick around? You bet. But is the LIRR or the MTA such a necessity that it justifies all of the waste that comes along with it? Probably not. But that will be a question that only time can tell. But I have a feeling you might not like the answer...

Tommy Meehan wrote:The graph is interesting, although to give the MTA credit it does show that for most years fares have risen at a rate lower than the rate of inflation based on 1974 prices and has just recently passed that.

What has historically happened counts for very little in the minds of commuters. It's the increases that are far in excess of the increase in cost of living now and over the course of the immediate past that is all that really matters. I wish I demanded a lot more money for things fifteen years ago, but just because I didn't back then doesn't give me any grounds to demand more money from my employer now.

Tommy Meehan wrote:I agree the rate of increase is much higher since 2000 but there's another equation to be factored in. The fares do not cover all the costs of operating the service. The real cost is close to double what the rider pays. The difference is made up with cash subsidies from NYS. So the fare increases could be a result of cash operating subsidies not maintaining pace with rising costs. In fact I believe that's true, that has been part of the MTA's strategy; riders must pay an increasing percentage of the cost of transporting them through fares.

From the fare payer's point of view, none of that matters. If the state yanks $1 million worth of funding away from the MTA, it will create a $1 million shortage in the MTA's budget. To remedy that, the MTA can either reduce its costs by $1 million (i.e. eliminate inefficiencies), or they can require that the riders pay $1 million more in fares and get that money from the farebox. From the fare payers point of view, so long as there are efficiencies that can be eliminated, the MTA should exhaust all of those alternatives first before turning to the fare payer for an exigent fare increase beyond the rate of inflation.

The same thing can be said for the capital program. The MTA can either keep asking and asking for somebody to give them a $15 billion blank check to fund the rest of the capital program, or they can reduce costs so that they can build more stuff with less money.

I've been around a while and compared to earlier times I don't see a lot of LIRR commuters complaining about the fare hikes. Nobody wants to pay higher fares but I think most riders see the changes that have been made over the past twenty years and feel they are getting value for their dollars. I don't agree the fare hikes are at the scandalous level. By looking at the graph you see that using the CPI from 2000 the fare should have gone up about $70; instead it went up $120. In the interim we had a severe recession when state government had a huge shortfall in revenues. Fares were probably raised to cover the proportion of the deficit the state could not or would not cover.

I also don't think it's accurate to say the amount of the cash subsidy is locked into the budget. The cash subsidy is tied into the size of the deficit. Bills have to be paid. In other words, LIRR can''t tell the workforce come payday, "The deficit exceeds what was budgeted. You're only getting 85% of your wage."

Don't forget, there are people who cannot use mass transportation to get to work, including on Long Island, because mass transportation does not go where they work. They have to drive. The average price of a car has increased 1,000% since 1974. Gas averaged under a dollar a gallon in 1974. Add in increases in servicing, parts replacement, insurance, tolls etc. and people who commute by car are paying a lot more money too. In fact on a percentage basis I suspect they may be paying a larger increase than are LIRR riders.