http://www.nysun.com/section/1 and
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02122007/news/regionalnews/bid_for_free_subways_regionalnews_jeremy_olshan.htm

Strongly agreed that the net cost would be much less than the lost revenue. (The same can be said for highway toll collections in many places.)

A counter-argument I haven't exactly seen here is that a free subway would attract even more scummy types who park themselves and don't leave than now, and would encourage people to abuse the system in other ways. I don't know that that's true. (Among other things, with a 24-hour system and the entire system one fare-paid area, if you're intent on sleeping on the subway, darling, that one fare isn't going to be that big a deal.) I've used (and driven) free shuttles and haven't seen that; I've taken joy rides on the Staten Island ferry when its price was so ridiculously low that it was like being free.

But even without joining the two things together--it bears repeating: the convenience to riders of approaching train info appearing OUTSIDE the system, on the street level, (before they have committed to using that (possibly disrupted) subway by swiping $2 or 18 minutes off of their Metrocard, makes too much sense not to happen. I have been wondering for years why they don't do it.

Great idea. I love the ones they have added to the Lorimer Station on the L. They would be even more useful at street level.

I would think that putting the signs along with the advertising would increase the visibility of the advertising enough to pay for itself. Currently, I suspect the ads are widely ignored but if train information was on the sign every single rider would look at the sign before entering the system.

Um, thanks. I never take ten block trips with the system we have. But you've probably noticed our buses charge the same flat fare as subways. And with the physical structure of our subway (trains just below the streets) they could service short trips splendidly if anyone working at MTA gave a damn. Makes a lot more sense than a two-hour underground odyssey to Far Rockaway. If service were more predictable (why not have the signs at street level announce approaching trains, instead of just advertising products?), and the next fare increase excluded intra-borough trips somehow, I just might take it my fifteen blocks to work occasionally. Surface options would be nice too, but we might want to properly manage the multi-gazillion-dollar system we have before we start screwing up a new one.

I think you're right that ridership numbers are less elastic in NYC than elsewhere yet it's hard for me to make that leap of faith to believe that paying, say, 75 cents more would result in more reasonable headways. But I certainly agree that New York's transit system could be vastly more reliable and popular- if only I felt the MTA could be trusted with a higher fare.

At one point I heard that an upgrade of the signaling in the subways could reduce the gaps between trains. This makes a lot of sense on the Manhattan Bridge for instance but on a train like the L that doesn't share it's line with another train service is so infrequent that the trains nearly always standing room only (at least for the first third of the line).

All of which is a rambling way to agree- yes we need better transit service.

That's because you shouldn't be riding the subway for ten blocks. Of course, currently there's not much choice because surface transport is even worse than the subway, but the way to solve that is to build some decent surface transportation. Streetcars in reserved lanes, perhaps.

Volkswagen spent 400 million dollars to design its new beetle and the Second Avenue Subway costs 2 billion per mile.

Underground transport and real estate might be better reserved for freight delivery or waste removal, or on a different level provide the infrastucture for geothermal heating and cooling a large portion of a truly sustainable and enlightened city.

I'd be for it. I can't really get too excited about a free subway when I avoid the one we have not because it costs money but because it's crappy. My hunch is that a free subway would degrade even further. I can't wait to be told, "What do you expect, it's FREE," by some lounging MTA worker. But then I don't think this is going to happen anyway.

In addition to peak/off peak fares, we could do something about the inequity of a ten-block ride costing the same as one spanning the entire line. I'm sure it's thought to be helpful in getting outer Queens motorists into a train (all you need is that and boat hook), but it mucks up incentives all over the place and is a global oddity. If LIRR, Metro North, and NJT ever do integrate with the subway the way they should (like RER + Metro in that other city), faster rail service could replace subway service at its extremes and shrink the flat-rate area to make fares more... fair.

I am frequently amazed at how fast the team of commenters on the blog can produce results.

Gene Russianoff deserves more write in votes than that. Come on NYC!

Since you asked (#13). There were no write-ins recorded in the Bronx in the 2005. However these results were collated by a computer scientist at a major local university from official NYC board of election results.

2005 mayoral election
Votes as reported NYC Board of Elections
Total New York City
CXB 35
A.Weiner 31
G. Miller 11
R. Giuliani 4

Bklyn NY Qns SI
CXB 17 14 3 1
A.Weiner 10 14 6 1
G. Miller 3 7 1 0
R. Giuliani 1 1 1 1

Note all of the above are write-in candidates.
Special note: Jesus Christ, god and Serpico all got one vote a piece in Queens. Gene Russianoff got 2 votes in Brooklyn.

In order for your Goals 5 and 6 to be achieved, either the Harlem and Hudson lines need to be converted to catenary power (catenary is generally considered more reliable technology than third rail), or a substantial portion of the Harlem/Hudson Line rolling stock needs to be converted to dual-mode operation, through retrofitting or new purchases.

I think the first option is best, but you're talking about a major operation that in itself will probably require as much time, money and political capital as the tunnel.

Pricing mass transit for congestion as well? For example, charge more for rides during peak hours than off hours on the subways and buses? Metronorth and LIRR already have a rudimentary system of peak/non-peak.

For example, make weekend and late night rides free, while charging full fare for weekday.

This is a visionary proposal that would be made possible with one simple, feasible step. Connect Penn Station and Grand Central with a simple two-track connection from Amtrak's West Side Line into existing platforms and tracks at Penn Station.

The connection would make thru running of trains possible, greatly enhancing efficiency and service. It would:

1. Make it far easier for NJ commuters to reach East Midtown. (This would reduce subway congestion, while NJ commuters, after a brief stop at Penn Station, would continue to the East side and then easily walk to their destinations)

2. Negate the for the multi-billion dollar "deep cavern" NJ Transit wants to build under 34th St and Macy's. (The money could instead be better spent on broader system upgrades.)

3. Increase train capacity at Grand Central

4. Improve access to West midtown for rail riders in The Bronx, Westchester, and CT

5. Allow routing of upstate intercity trains through Grand Central to Philadelphia or Washington

6. Improve rail access to Newark Airport for people in White Plains and Westchester

7. Vastly improve operating efficiency of rolling stock (The need to store trains in close-in rail yards would be reduced; trains instead would be in revenue use throughout the day)

Berlin, London and Philadelphia already have such configurations of their commuter rail systems. Philadelphia's of course is barely hanging on because of poor and unstable funding. But there's so much potential to transform NYC's regional rail system. A zone stretching from the Queens-Nassau border and west across the Hudson, including Newark, could become a central zone with frequent, 10-min headway service. The plan calls for 60 new and existing stations to become hubs for locally planned, transit-oriented development. Penn Station would be transformed into three side-by-side thru stations. Virtually all regional rail stations would be connected to each other, opening many new travel possibilities. Penn Station becomes a hub with many passengers using thru services or finding it convenient to transfer at Penn Station.

With frequent service, integrated fares and thur operation, many passnegers passing through Manhattan would find it more attractive to use regional rail service rather than crowded highways and river crossings.

The regional benefits could be incredible, especially for NYC.

See more here:
http://www.trainsofthought.com/

and here:

http://www.irum.org/