No, of course not- public workers should be treated better; after all, they are more equal than others. I never think more of Soviet Russia, with its dual system of stores (empty shelves for the commoners and tons of black caviar for party members) than when I read about New York's unions.

"can barely pay the bills" is normal in much of the world, and in our modern economy we are competing with the entire world. America has been getting poorer and living on more and more borrowed money since the 70's. In dollars adjusted for technological advancements and inflation, we have all become poorer, and it no longer makes sense to prop up certain groups of people at the expense of others. So yes, all Americans should be held up to the same standard, whether they work in the private sector or not. Doing otherwise is socialism, a system we (like the Soviet Union) can no longer afford.

Reform labor costs to what end? So the MTA conductor no longer makes 55K and is treated like the rest of Americans who work in the private sector and can barely pay the bills?

There are probably savings to be had, but we should not do it at the expect of our transit system's safety and reliability.

I would also say the mounting debt service is a much bigger problem than paying qualified people living wages to safety driver our trains.

B. Kabak brought this up a month or so ago, but few others do. Until the MTA gets the political support it needs to reform its labor costs, it will serve not as a public-transit agency but as a funnel through which money is transferred from the unorganized public to a powerful, organized special interest.

And yes, the Atlantic Yards decision is a horrible joke, and also hurts informed public support of the MTA.

In Miami, FL I easily spent about $500 a month for the privilege, and "convenience" of driving a car. That figure is based on my monthly payments for a fairly reliable car, insurance, and gasoline, but it does not figure in maintenance, repairs, and the joys of grid-lock.

I will gladly pay $89 a month for unlimited rides, and I'm perfectly fine with paying double that if it will insure the reduction of "trash" on the trains.

Bob Moses really screwed us. Again.

Actually, J, I think in this case it was Nelson Rockefeller.

1) the elasticity of demand for transit will likely become greater above a threshold which effectively caps the total amount of revenue (higher fares will result in fewer riders after a certain point.) I admit this is speculation as there really isn't much data, but do you really think that $10 per ride fares are not going to drastically reduce ridership?

2) Fares should remain lower than the operating cost because they are a public good and should be subsidized. Everyone in the area benefits from transit, not just the people who use it, so in order to get the maximum aggregate value you have to subsidize ridership.

Most everyone agrees on #2, the debate is mainly about how much to subsidize transit relative to competing public goods like roads and car infrastructure.

Back to the original point, yeah we badly need a way to get people to recognize that transit is good and should get much more resources than it does now. The reality is that even in the best scenario it will take a long time to improve transit to the level where people choose it over cars on the basis of speed, convenience, or comfort.
Right now it can only compete on price. One logical thing to do in this situation is to increase the price of driving a car relative to transit to the point where a significant number of car trips switch to transit. Congestion pricing was one attempt to do that. People rightly recognized that it was a tax on their preferred mode of travel.
How do you convince people that transit needs more funding when right now it is very few people's first choice of how to travel, given the option?
The MTA doesn't help, and if there were a way to bring NYC transit back under city control I would say that would be a place to start.

Bob Moses really screwed us. Again.

Having spent enough time in Japan to know what a public transportation infrastructure SHOULD look like (clean, efficient, safe, and no more than 600 yards to any station in the Tokyo suburban area), I'm going to be surprised if we can reach it. Japanese intercity train as well as SF BART (I'm sure there are more examples) are charged by distance traveled, which makes more sense than a flat-fee, but the entire economy of NYC would shudder if we implemented that here.

And echoing the comments of @oscarfrye, I just don't think anyone has the trust in MTA to allow the change to be made.

Sigh. It would be easy to give up hope, but I save money as long as I don't buy an unlimited pass. Works okay for me.

And as a result of that attitude over many years, it is becomming more rational, as decline and collapse becomes likely as a result of past decisions regardless of future decisions. Unless with get a bankruptcy to cancel those past decisions.

The cheaper it gets, the more transit falls into that latter category.

That actually is the crux of my argument: folks like the quondam me who spend thousands of dollars annually on the necessary equipment to navigate those underpriced roads are the constituency for road funding. As the transit fare continues to sink, transit users are less and less invested in the transit system.

Now that the subway fare costs less than a cup of cart coffee and the Daily News, is it any wonder that amNY interviewees Angela and Marcia are coming up with any excuse to switch modes?

If the face-value fare was $3.50 or $4 (and to help the less well-off the state let you sign up for transitcheck out of your unemployment or SSI benefits), maybe the system could cover its own operating costs and not be at Albany's mercy, and we could get consistent and decent quality of service. That would bring back Angela and Marcia for sure.

I think the greater problem here in New York is the public's general distrust and dislike of the MTA, as noted above, and perception that it is bloated, corrupt, wasteful, etc. This attitude is evident in the amNew York article. This was a serious challenge in the recent battle in Albany for transit funding. The MTA would benefit from a major effort to improve its image with the public by simple customer service improvements and a more savvy P.R. campaign.

But no matter what you do, when you conduct a man-on-the-street interview while raising fares, you'll always get negative responses