Oh, and More Trains More Often (esp late at night).

Intuitively, I guess this makes sense, but I'm not clear on whether there's any facts to back up the point that cheaper unlimited ride cards would be more effective at increasing off-peak ridership than lower off-peak single fares.

From the original post:
"In just a few weeks, on March 2, we will all be paying more for those unlimited ride cards. A monthly pass, for example, will rise to $81, up from $76. The law of supply and demand being what it is, this means that fewer people will buy Unlimited Ride MetroCards than otherwise would have, and thus fewer people will use the subways."

Economically, you're right, but I have a hard time visualizing a hypothetical frequent transit rider who is accustomed to paying $76 for a monthly unlimited ride card and will balk at the small (in comparison to $76) incremental increase to $81. I know I'm certainly not doing so.

Anonymous at #4 wrote:
"The huge discount that London gives for the Oyster is just because it makes it that much easier for the government to track your every subway trip."

I don't buy that. You can buy an Oyster card with cash and replenish its value with cash, just like a Metrocard. There doesn't have to be any identifying information tied to it. I think they give the discount (which gets bigger the more often you ride) because they want to encourage transit ridership and speed passage through the turnstiles.

@alex at #8 wrote:
"2. For better or worse, many advocates (political or otherwise) will argue that the poorest New Yorkers cannot put together enough cash at one time to buy the discounted unlimited-ride cards (especially the monthly cards) and that as they tend to live in higher-crime areas, the risk of having a monthly card stolen may be an unacceptable risk as they cannot afford the money (or time) to replace them."

If you buy a monthly unlimited ride card with a credit card (yes, I know I'm going against my earlier point about the anonymity afforded by paying with cash), the MTA will refund you the remaining value of a lost or stolen card.

Tania Katherine at #11 wrote:
"I've been saying for a long while that the MTA could make a killing (monetarily) by having a 'late night unlimited metrocard' for the hours between 11pm and 5am--only. I'd buy daily unlimited cards all the time (as would most of the 'nightlife' crowd) if the following two factors were true: they didn't expire at midnight when I still have 5 more hours of parties and bars to go to and if my normal 45 minute commute home from the LES took under three hours in the late night.

Hence, why most of the nightlife crowd doesn't use the MTA and yellow cabs make a killing."

I don't buy that. If I spring for a cab late at night it's because I'm not near the subway or because I don't feel like waiting for one (since it can be as long as a half hour between trains overnight). Additionally, while this isn't generally a factor for me, I believe some people feel unsafe either on the subway or walking to/from the subway late at night and feel safer taking a cab. Also, if you're talking about travel BETWEEN bars during that time window, again I think people spring for cabs because they're quicker and thus don't consume as much of your valuable drinking time. Changing the late-night fare structure wouldn't really address any of these issues.

Oh, but if you're routinely out until 5am then I need to hang out with you more often.

I agree with othhers here that if you want to encourage off-peak riding, cut the off-peak fare. I don't buy the argument that a $1 fare is as much of a deterrent to riding as a $2 fare.

with off peak being cheaper of course

with peak being cheaper of course

I am a current monthly card holder, but much of the year, I am commuting with the bike and take the train only a few times a week, so I buy a $40 card. I have grown to love the unlimited cards, because some days I am taking three or more trips per day. You can't stereotype who's taking the train with what fare cards, because of the huge variety of riders and their needs. I still can't believe there are people who use change to get on the bus, but I see it all the time.

But Mark's "why single us out for punishment?" also cuts to the quick. I thought that the first guy Marcus pretty much showed how much lower TA fares are than than London's.

That said there are lots of good suggestions here, there are many different ways to slice up the market. Believe it or not the MTA has looked at many of these. It is also much easier to propose acceptable fare cuts of any shape and size than it is to propose fare increases of any shape and size.

The only thing on the table that brings any new revenue to the MTA is congestion pricing. Put it all to fare cuts if you want, run the system for free if you want, still somebody has to pay something sometime.

And Konrad: so suppose you do get the $31 card instead of spending the $40 a month on fares. Well, you just lost the MTA $9 in monthly revenue. And since you now have an unlimited card, you're more likely to take the subway rather than walk, in the marginal case, so you use the transit system more. More ridership and lower revenue is not what the transit system needs. What the MTA needs to do is recognize that the most expensive riders are the ones at rush hour, because rush hour is what determines peak capacity. So at off peak hours, nights, weekends, and so on, the price could be made lower. It partly makes up for the worse service at those times too.

I am similar to you in that I rarely use mass transit in favor of walking or in most cases cycling. As a result, I choose to pay per ride, because it is cheaper than buying a monthly MetroCard.

Regardless, I often spend about $40 a month on transit fare because of snow days or weekend rides or any reason why my bike isn't practical. If I could have a unlimited monthly card for $31, I would get it, even though I don't use the subway daily, because it would still be cheaper than paying per ride. Lots of other people who normally buy pay-per-ride cards would also do this, thereby increasing ridership and possibly revenue to the MTA.

The problem I have with your policy prescription is that it's too broad, and as your plan makes MetroCards cheaper for users like you, it also makes them cheaper for daily commuters. It's like saying "Elderly pensioners can't afford home heating oil, so let's fix the price for everyone at fifty cents a gallon." There's an argument for that as applied to public transit, too, but I don't think it's your argument.

Hence, why most of the nightlife crowd doesn't use the MTA and yellow cabs make a killing.

Basically, price points should be determined by economic principles, not by political ones. Remember when unlimited cell phone plans used to be outrageously expensive, before the companies realized that they could make more money by signing people up for long-term contracts? How's this for an idea - a 2-year unlimited metrocard for NYC residents, billed at $31/month, with a $150 cancellation fee? Each card would be $744 guaranteed income for the MTA - great levrage for financing. Also a really good deal for transit users.

Is NYC the only city with a large subway system that does not incorporate a (major) benefit for city residents?