Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so.

I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MTA should just do that without a revenue source to replace rider fares. It would result in a completely broken subway system.

Huh? Free? A ton of tax money goes to both road maintenance and public transportation. This kind of price hiking comes off as a double-dip. Surely they have enough money in the budget already?

> Surely they have enough money in the budget already?

No, the MTA seems to be running with a substantial deficit right now: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics

Removing fare revenue would only exacerbate that as a large portion of their revenue comes from fares.

nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year.

labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems.

a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?

> but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?

Not necessarily. Consider: what would they cut? Run fewer trains? Reducing frequency has a huge negative effect on how convenient transfers are, which means you're likely pushing more riders away. (It can be the difference between hopping off one train and catching a new one 5 minutes later rather than 10 or 15 minutes later. Not a fun change in the middle of your trips!)

That can then lead to even less fare revenue... and you really don't want that, it's the infamous transit death spiral.