NJ Transit Plans 25% Fare Increase Amid Deficit

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

March 5 (Bloomberg) -- New Jersey Transit proposed raising fares by a record 25 percent system-wide and reducing service to help close a $300 million budget deficit.

The changes would take effect May 1 and generate $140 million in revenue, NJ Transit said in a statement today. Executive Director James Weinstein has said the agency, the third-largest U.S. transit system, also will cut jobs and trim salaries to cope with declining ridership and less aid.

“We recognize that any increase is a burden for our customers, particularly during a recession,” Weinstein said in the statement. “However, we have worked to keep local bus fares below the regional average and preserved some important discounts for seniors and people with disabilities.”

Governor Chris Christie said last month he would cut NJ Transit’s $296 million annual subsidy by 11 percent, or $33 million, to help close a $2.2 billion deficit in the state budget for this fiscal year, which ends June 30. Christie, a Republican who took office Jan. 19, has vowed not to raise taxes.

“This fare hike is nothing more than a tax increase by another name,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Sayreville Democrat who chairs the transportation committee. Christie’s spokesman, Mike Drewniak, referred comment to Weinstein’s office. Weinstein was appointed by Christie in January.

Based on the $331 monthly train fare from Princeton Junction to New York Penn Station, a 25 percent increase would mean an additional $83, or $996 more a year. Riders taking the bus from Jersey City to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan would pay another $27 monthly above the current $109.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=av6rfa0XMltc

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

“This fare hike is nothing more than a tax increase by another name,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Sayreville Democrat who chairs the transportation committee.

This is true, but...

Based on the $331 monthly train fare from Princeton Junction to New York Penn Station, a 25 percent increase would mean an additional $83, or $996 more a year.

The men and women who take the express trains from Princeton J. to NY Penn can easily afford an extra 1K.

What is much more disturbing is that they're increasing bus fares as well. Many retail establishments on the Route 22 corridor are staffed by poorer people who don't own cars but take the bus from home to work. They typically live in denser, urban areas where bus service is much more ubiquitous than it is where I live. They typically make a little more than minimum wage.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Regional Transit systems across the country are facing huge budget deficits, including Sacramento.

Fares rise, and service routes are cut. Paying more for less. It's the American way.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/06/2586658/r...nk=omni_popular

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Regional Transit systems across the country are facing huge budget deficits, including Sacramento.

Well, there's no reason to expect regional transit systems to be exempt from the pain. I don't know about Sacramento but out here NJ Transit (and PATH and LIRR and Metro North etc.) are major enablers for getting labor to where the jobs are. They are approaching the problem very bluntly and not with the precision required. For example from the train station nearest my house (2.5 miles) if the frequency of trains to Newark goes down from its current once every 45 minutes to once every 90 minutes, or if service ends at 8pm instead of 11pm, the line becomes essentially unusable. You're better off, at that point, driving. And that, in turn, will drive ridership even lower driving even more cuts in service. And then when the economy does turn around more, we won't have the means of moving people from the burbs into Manhattan for work.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Well, there's no reason to expect regional transit systems to be exempt from the pain. I don't know about Sacramento but out here NJ Transit (and PATH and LIRR and Metro North etc.) are major enablers for getting labor to where the jobs are. They are approaching the problem very bluntly and not with the precision required. For example from the train station nearest my house (2.5 miles) if the frequency of trains to Newark goes down from its current once every 45 minutes to once every 90 minutes, or if service ends at 8pm instead of 11pm, the line becomes essentially unusable. You're better off, at that point, driving. And that, in turn, will drive ridership even lower driving even more cuts in service. And then when the economy does turn around more, we won't have the means of moving people from the burbs into Manhattan for work.

AJ, you bring out an important point. Public Transit ultimately facilitates increasing the number of taxpayers for the Gov't. If not for effective mass transit, a certain % of workers cannot ride the train or bus for 2 hrs each day each way to their minimum and minimal paying job. Local Gov't ultimately benefits from subsidizing mass transit. I wonder how much the NJ Gov't subsidizes the NJ Transit Authority?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ, you bring out an important point. Public Transit ultimately facilitates increasing the number of taxpayers for the Gov't. If not for effective mass transit, a certain % of workers cannot ride the train or bus for 2 hrs each day each way to their minimum and minimal paying job. Local Gov't ultimately benefits from subsidizing mass transit. I wonder how much the NJ Gov't subsidizes the NJ Transit Authority?

I don't have the number, but they are reducing the subsidy. Again, that's fine because NJ Transit is not the only agency getting their money cut. Times are tough, I get it. There are other things I'd rather see them do. For example charging extra tolls on the highways from out of state drivers passing through. New Jersey is used as a commercial corridor for all kinds of goods, that would work.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't have the number, but they are reducing the subsidy. Again, that's fine because NJ Transit is not the only agency getting their money cut. Times are tough, I get it. There are other things I'd rather see them do. For example charging extra tolls on the highways from out of state drivers passing through. New Jersey is used as a commercial corridor for all kinds of goods, that would work.

Only problem is it would probably violate the anti-tariff provisions of the US Constitition, although they do allow states to tax the fuel in your tanks that you purchase in another state to avoid paying road taxes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Only problem is it would probably violate the anti-tariff provisions of the US Constitition ...

Yeah, the specific proposal that had been raised was to increase tolls on everyone and then give a tax refund to NJ residents at tax time.

[Texanadian 10]

There isn't a public transit system in the US that isn't subsidized.

From Car & Driver

The New York subway system, popularly called the “electric sewer” in my 19 years as a Manhattan cliff dweller, hauls the masses and is arguably the most cost-efficient transit system in the country. Passengers pay 68 percent of operating costs. The numbers drop from there, as does ridership. Around the country, San Francisco is next best at 57 percent, then Washington, D.C., at 48 percent, followed by Boston riders who pay 41 percent, 36 percent in Chicago, 31 percent in Atlanta, 28 percent in Los Angeles, and 20 percent in Denver.

Think of it this way. Every time a Los Angelino gets on the Metro Rail, he lays out a buck and a quarter, more or less, depending on his destination, and the taxpayers kick in about three and a half bucks. Next time you ding your credit card for gas at $4 per gallon, imagine getting back a check from the government for almost $3 a gallon. Not gonna happen. Frequent fliers and UPS shippers don’t get this kind of deal either. But mass transit exists in that wishful world in which my happiness and yours depends upon everyone else hopping on the train or bus so we don’t have to.

Not only that, mass transit isn't that "green" either.

“Light rail” is the darling of transit boosters these days, operating or under construction in 26 American cities, including sprawling Phoenix and scattered Seattle-Tacoma. This is a system of self-powered cars. Depending on the design, it may run on its own exclusive right of way or on tracks through the streets. “Heavy rail,” either subways or elevated, always runs on its own right of way. “Commuter rail” uses passenger coaches pulled by locomotives, often on tracks shared with freight lines.

“Most light-rail systems use as much or more energy per passenger mile as the average passenger car, several are worse than the average light truck, and none is as efficient as a Prius,” writes Randal O’Toole in a new study from the Cato Institute titled “Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?”

From several federal sources, O’Toole calculated the average energy used per passenger mile for various transportation methods. Ferry boats came out worst, sucking up 10,744 BTUs per passenger mile. A Toyota Prius was best at 1659 BTUs per mile. The average of all automobiles, which includes SUVs, vans, and cars together, is 3885 BTUs per mile, whereas passenger cars alone average 3445. The average light-rail system is slightly worse at 3465. Buses, at 4365 BTUs, are much worse; commuter rail and heavy rail are better at about 2600 but still no match for the Prius.

It turns out that light-rail cars aren’t light, weighing in at about 100,000 pounds, roughly four times the weight of a bus and 34 times the weight of a Prius. Another problem: With electrical power, there’s major shrinkage between the energy of the fuel going into a generating plant and the actual power out the far end of the transmission system to the railway—10,300 BTUs in for 3400 BTUs out, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Yet another problem: To justify the political demands that come with the huge investment, light rail runs at a greater frequency than buses, and the trains are largely empty at off-peak travel times and toward the ends of the lines. Fully loaded rail cars are very energy efficient, but every mile traveled by a nearly empty car pulls down the average.

Finally, all kilowatt-hours aren’t created equally: Washington state, Oregon, and California rely heavily on hydro power, whereas Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia depend on fossil fuel. And this, in turn, leads to differing global-warming implications. If the electricity comes from nuclear or hydro, some rail systems surpass the Prius on CO2 emissions (0.26 pound per passenger mile), as they do in Portland (0.08) and Los Angeles (0.18). Washington, D.C., and Baltimore have heavy-rail systems at 0.62 and 0.50, respectively; light rail in Philadelphia is 0.69, two-and-a-half times dirtier than the Prius.

Transit systems produce good numbers in New York City and nowhere else. The reason: New York’s system (rail and buses) attracted 30.8 percent of commuters in 2006. San Francisco-Oakland, Boston, and Chicago were next in line but way back with 13.1 percent, 12.3 percent, and 12.2 percent. Dallas-Fort Worth brings up the why-bother end, attracting 2.1 percent of commuters. New Orleans and Sacramento, both at 2.9 percent, are little better.

Texanadian: So public transportation was already being highly subsidized before this whole fiscal mess happened. I see no problem with cutting back on the subsidies. People who use this instead of a car save lots on gas, insurance, risk of car accidents, wear and tear, and in many cases parking fees.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Texanadian

[luckytxn 2,264]

I have to go to NJ often and for many years now. Sometimes while I am waiting at a customer for hours I can see the passenger rails go by and it is usually very few people riding in them. Always wondered how they stay in business but of course I knew they were heavily subsidized. In fact I go all over the U.S. and many cities and it is the same everywhere. Most of the time there are very few riders. There are more during the morning and late as busy go to work and back home but why have the empty rails so often.

Now Texasandian since you seem from Houston then you know we are very recent newbies to rail. They have one line and are trying to build up to 3 more. For many years they kept trying and put it for vote to the people and we kept voting it down. They finally learned and just did it without putting it to a vote. I have never seen many people riding it and it is heavily subsidized. The ridership pays just 30% of the metro expenses and that includes the buses and trolleys. The rest are paid by a special tax on sales.

Now we have a new mayor and she has been gunning for the metro and has even fired a couple of the biggies there. It seems that they have been having a field day with our subsidies and living large. Many at the top are asking the mayor to keep quiet as it may hurt the chances of an expected 300 million of Fed funds that is supposed to be coming to build two of the lines.. This national taxpayer funds create a lot of incentives for waste. Now we all know that the reason the politicos wanted this increase in something us public did not want and that is patronage. Patronage means graft coming back to the politicos.

[Ali G. 37]

AJ, you bring out an important point. Public Transit ultimately facilitates increasing the number of taxpayers for the Gov't. If not for effective mass transit, a certain % of workers cannot ride the train or bus for 2 hrs each day each way to their minimum and minimal paying job. Local Gov't ultimately benefits from subsidizing mass transit. I wonder how much the NJ Gov't subsidizes the NJ Transit Authority?

I love that attitude here. That is, public transport is basically for the losers. Whereas, the 'smart rich folks' just sit it out in traffic. Anyone in LA or DC that prefers driving over mass transit needs to head to the closet MRI facility and have their brain scanned for damage. Followed by a blood test to detect poisoning, due to toxins entering the system from pollution. Some times, it actually takes me 25 minutes just to get to out local post office, with is 4 miles away. Personally, I've had it up to my neck being stuck in traffic on shitty US (third world grade) roads. It's just ironical that for a country that luuuuuves driving, you do have some of the shittiest roads out there.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Booyah

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some times, it actually takes me 25 minutes just to get to out local post office, with is 4 miles away.

You don't walk very fast, do you?

[Ali G. 37]

You don't walk very fast, do you?

25 minutes to drive. Not too many places you can read the paper while driving.

Our local repubs decry murder when it comes to raising gas taxes (user pays) to fund the much needed infrastructure and roads, yet don't seem to have any issue with the billions wasted each year lost in productivity due to simply idling. Then again, I have really grown to like repubonomics. Got not money for America, yet have no issue with the $1,100 billion expenditure of the Military each year; which excludes the wars cost of course.

I realized it the other day when I was idling and thinking of something someone here said about public transport. Basically, that it's not for everyone or every location. Fair enough, but then why are the roads in such a shitty condition? Surely if you have little interest in public transport then the roads should be immaculate. That is, at least equal in quality to the Canadian and European counterparts we enjoy mocking. Just the other day I needed to get my wheels realigned again, due to ever increasing potholes.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Booyah

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

25 minutes to drive.

Ditch the Yugo and get a car.

Our local repubs decry murder when it comes to raising taxes to pay for much needed infrastructure and roads, but the billions wasted each year lost in productivity idling seems to be okay with them. Then again, I have really grown to like repubonomics.

Valid point, infrastructure is a mess in this country.

[Texanadian 10]

It's the darned green movement that is anti-build new highways and/or expand on the old ones. Insisting instead on the use of buses, rail, etc. I personally don't have an issue with public transportation. I DO have an issue with inefficient public transportation. What good is a bus that drives around all day that has 5 people on it?

If gas tax is going 100% to roads, I have no problems with raising it. Particularly when it's state gas tax rather than Federal gas tax. (Because who knows where the fed. gas tax is going to go.)

After using the skytrain in Vancouver (above ground rail on it's own set of tracks), I have to give ground rail in Houston a thumbs down. Why? Well for starters, the skytrain MOVES when it's operating. You can see the traffic below stopped or driving slow during rush hour. Meanwhile you're doing 50 mph in the skytrain. As a vehicle driver in Houston, the rail is a nuisance. It takes up a whole lane of traffic. Causes vehicles to wait at red lights when there is no cross traffic. The amount of car accidents colliding with the rail is huge. In fact just a week or so ago a bus ran a red light and got T-boned by the rail car. And of course there is the factor that the Houston metro rail doesn't go anywhere.

I like that my job in the medical center has all sorts of emphasis on helping the workers get to work. For me, I get free parking. A nice fact considering there are over 70,000 people who work there. They have shuttle buses and rail that take you from various free parking spots. Weekend parking is free right next door to the hospitals. If you want to take the bus to work from near your home, they give you pre-loaded free bus cards that automatically re-load at the end of the month. You get free taxis home for emergency situations (kid got sick etc) if you're a bus rider. They also will pay for your park 'n ride parking pass if you come to work that way......Me? I'd love to take the bus to work and leave my car at home. But unfortunately, the earliest bus on my route that would get me there would mean I'd be half an hour late for work every day.

I see Houston metro rail is in hot water right now for destroying documents related to some sort of internal investigation. What can you do though? At least in my situation (driving every day), I leave early enough going to work and coming home that I avoid rush hour either way. People are in a hurry to get places in this giant city (a fact that I like). As such, it's common to be doing 80 mph on the highway every day. People enjoy the opportunity to get somewhere fast when they have the chance.

Actually now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the Houston metro rail was built as some way of satisfying the EPA in regards to clean air regulations. The majority of cars on the roads here are actually pretty good in that regard. Yearly emissions testing. The state pays a certain amount for you to scrap an old car if it won't pass and you choose to dispose of it. And car prices are lower here than Canada. So you tend to see more new cars and less old cars on the roads anyways.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Texanadian