Lower Fares Raise Ridership

State Comptroller H. Carl McCall has predicted that capital improvements to the New York City transit system will bring about a 30-cent increase to bus and subway fares by the year 2004. Fares on the commuter train lines that serve the city, such as Metro North and the Long Island Rail Road, could also surge upward, McCall said.

The fare hike would be necessary for the financing of $17.5 billion in expansion and renovation plans over five years, including putting a tunnel into Grand Central Terminal for Long Island Rail Road service to that facility, the start of construction of the long-requested Second Avenue subway and extension of the 'N' subway line to LaGuardia Airport. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has said it intends to issue bonds to raise at least half the money. McCall pointed out that such a move will result in a 60 percent increase in borrowing costs.

McCall added that aid from Albany would be necessary to cover the interest on the additional debt. Without that aid, the people who use the system--the fare card-swiping, working-class passengers--would have to make up the difference with a $1.80 tariff every time they board a bus or subway. McCall did not indicate whether or not such state aid would be forthcoming.

Several elements of the five-year plan are opposed by a number of people for a number of reasons. Many residents of northwestern Queens, while in principle agreeing to the need for some sort of mass transportation route to LaGuardia Airport, understandably don't want an extended elevated train running through their front or back yards. Extending the LIRR into Grand Central would benefit Queens residents only marginally. The proposed Second Avenue subway would run from 125th to East 63rd Street in Manhattan, rather than extending the length of the island's east side, rendering it far less useful.

There is no doubt that the transportation system is in desperate need of improvement. The overcrowded Lexington line is the bane of many a Queens resident who must brave jam-packed trains and platforms every working day. Pennsylvania station is equally overcrowded at rush hour and while most LIRR riders come from further out on the island, running some trains directly into Grand Central might help to better conditions at transfer points in Queens. Some sort of mass transit ride to LaGuardia would do much to alleviate the traffic jams that frequently plague Queens roads.

Governor George Pataki responded to McCall's report on financing the proposed improvements by a possible fare hike with "I hope a fare hike is not necessary," but gave no other indication that state aid to the MTA would be increased in any way. Meanwhile, E. Virgil Conway, MTA chairman, told eight state assemblymembers gathered in Manhattan on Nov. 2nd that a 30-cent increase in subway and bus fares is "relatively modest."

"Modest" is a word that can mean what the person using it wants it to mean. The fact that 30 cents equals 20 percent of $1.50, however, is immutable and inescapable. Sale items discounted 20 percent from their regular prices have long proved sufficient to induce shoppers to enter a store. A 20 percent salary raise would make a good part of the American work force very happy. "Modest" is, indeed, relative, but 20 percent is 20 percent, however the quantity is applied.

Not long ago the MTA flaunted a surplus of more than $2 billion. While this amount cannot all be applied to the capital plan it represents a good start. It could be either used outright or the interest applied to defraying some of the costs. And while bonds cannot be expected to provide all the financing for the capital plan, it certainly seems possible that the improvements would pay for themselves in the long term.

A fare hike exhibits the sort of shortsighted thinking that has plagued the American surface transportation industry for years. Nearly always the response to a cash shortfall has been to raise fares and cut service. Whatever short-term gains may be realized, they are quickly wiped out in lost revenues as passengers, weary of paying more for less, find other means of getting to their destinations. New Yorkers who cannot or will not fork over an additional 30 cents per ride will find other ways to get to work, to school, or wherever else they need to go.

Some of those ways will not be beneficial to New York City. More passenger cars on the roads, to cite just one example, will add to pollution and congestion. Gypsy cabs, which are unregulated by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, will increase in number. As many of these vehicles are unsafe--some don't even carry insurance--the lives of their passengers as well as their drivers will be put in peril. Some people who for any of a number of reasons cannot make themselves into power walkers will be confronted with a choice of either paying more for possibly unsafe, certainly expensive, service or being unable to get to their destination, whatever it may be.

The MTA has demonstrated its ability to hold down the costs of capital projects on several occasions. The practice of according a bonus to contractors if they finish a project ahead of schedule and financially penalizing them by a like amount for every day they fall behind is one such example. With proper planning the MTA can achieve the results desired without bankrupting the city, the state or its passengers. We urge the authority to begin engaging in such planning immediately. Yes, the system needs improving, but not at the cost of bankrupting the people who out of necessity must pay for its use.

We have said it for the past two decades, and we will say it again: lower the fare and you will dramatically increase rider volume, which in turn will increase profit and eliminate the anticipated deficit. The combination of increased service and lower fares is a winning one for all New Yorkers.