Nope, that’s the pay per ride price with the 6 rides for 5 discount.

Also, the media has flipped the class issue rap. Before Spitzer’s announcement the $2 was for very poor people who couldn’t afford the monthly rates or the bulk rates (the wino on my office stoop has a 30 day Metro Card) and the increase was going to push them over the edge. Now class mobility has apparently ensued and the $2 is something only the tourists pay any way so the “regular guy” Daily News reader is getting screwed again. Which is it?

If only the MTA hadn’t proposed the off peak fare, because what ever it proposes the grandstanders are against it.

Whereas in Los Angeles advocates sued to keep the monthly low, claiming that the carless working poor used it while the single ride was used by affluent teens going to the mall, in New York the opposite argument was made.

And people argue that an off peak discount is inequitable since the rich will change their work hours but the poor are not allowed to. In reality car owners would pay the higher far during the only time they ride — to and from work in Manhattan — while the carless would benefit from cheaper non-work trips.

Brad, that would fry me too, but you could also see how her biased motoring colleagues might complain something like this: “What really cheeses me is that I have to commute in my motorcar to PS Eleventy-One from my suburban home and suffer traffic jams and the skyrocketing cost of gas, paid for with after-tax dollars, while Mrs. Aaron gets cost certainty for her commute (as well as her other errands) by buying an unlimited-ride card every month WITH PRETAX DOLLARS using transitcheck.”

Another side effect to Spitzer’s bungled immigrant-license plan. Man’s not in a position to stick his neck out on anything. He’s reduced to the bold, politically daring step of opposing fare increases.

Setting aside questions of how it manages its finances (if that’s possible), I personally think the MTA is taking a bit of a bum rap on the hikes. The money has to come from somewhere, and it was only when the pols started to look bad did they make any offers of state aid. And of course there are still no guarantees.

Right, but the MTA has received zero credit for this, or for the unlimited ride cards. Where has anyone said the fare has plunged relative to inflation, while labor costs (driven by retirees not workers) has risen faster than inflation?

The right thing to do is to eliminate the unlimited ride cards and the 5 for 6 discount, implement the lower $1.50 fare off peak, and say that fares have been cut to the level of 1995 for all but the peak hours.

The 5/6 Metrocard discounts may have made sense when the MTA was trying to get people to use Metrocards. It makes less sense now. Similarly, free travel above a certain point may have made sense when it was assumed that more ridership meant more tax support. That has been debunked.

At this point, the MTA cannot take more peak riders, and people would rather avoid paying than expand the system. The one discount that remains sensible is for off-peak usage.

The L, the 4,5,6 and the E are laughably crowded. In the absence of an aggressive (and costly) plan to expand service, I don’t see how the MTA solves this problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html?ex=1340510400&en=50b9d2478b4a2211&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I think the MTA deserves credit for offering a novel solution to the growing number of trains that are operating past capacity. It’s unfortunate this plan has gotten ignored admidst all the noise surrounding the hike…

What the NY should do is put tolls on the East River bridges and use the money to subsidize subway fares.

Perhaps the MTA should consider draining down all its cash reserves and then slashing service. That appears to be the only poltically acceptable option.