Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders

http://beijingtoday.com.cn/2013/12/subway-slash-traffic-price-hike/

More ammunition to my argument. Sorry, bud.

Beijing Subway Fare Increase Proposals: Let Us Count the Ways

http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2013/12/19/beijing-subway-fare-increase-proposals-let-us-count-ways

Five Proposals

All that's sure is it's going up someway, somehow

You are cute, squid.

The office of Urban Development here

certainly should be more than happy to

listen and even follow all the advices,

maybe they even hand over a medal.

And a certificate. And a keyboared for all

the typing.

Can't you two just get a life?

I admit, I give thoughtful responses. I am not prone to rants. If you do have ADD, I guess that proves further what my opening line in previous post was alluding to. Autism, I don't think that's what's at hand here (I realize you're being cheeky -- do not take this as my stance, because other than admittance, I have no way to test whether you in fact have ADD -- nor do I care.)

In regards to your question, 90 people aren't paying less. They're paying for what they use -- just like the other 10 would be doing. The fact that they ride the subway for a shorter distance determines why they pay "less" overall, but no less per KM. Yeah, my dinner cost less because I had noodles, the other guy had a porterhouse. But we both paid fixed costs (service charge, etc.) But if I would've ordered porterhouse, I would've paid exactly the same thing as my restaurant mate. In regards to my example, you are to show me cost calculation, not payment. The reason you are being asked to do this is because you believe ALL riders cost the subway operators the same.

Your thoughtfulness, or lack thereof, is clear for all to see.

1) Your are confused about the advertising/sales team bit. You said additional costs could be shouldered by more advertising and rental shop fees. I told you the former, if an actual solution, would certainly have been tried by now. The latter, well, you seemed to have conveniently not replied to that one until the bottom (and completely misunderstood the point).

2) Your first paragraph, thank you, you now seem to get the definition of a public good. Thank you showing you were twisting my words, but I'm afraid you have done it again in regards to other things (keep reading).

3) You never want to talk about distance-fare buses, and deem distance-based fares as "nonsense." Oh, so China Railways, and Euro Rail and Japan Rail and Amtrak and countless others, they all have their revenue structure based on nonsense, eh? Hogwash. It's like you are unwilling to accept that there are distance-fare buses operating in this city, as well. You are unwilling to accept that a bus ride for a Changpinger is more than a bus ride from Dongsi-DZM. And why is that? Is there not the same terminus and last stop for buses as there are for subways? Oh, I know why! Because the longer distance you ride, the more energy you are forcing the bus to use, and thus the more you are being asked to pay! Novel concept, but hardly rocket science so I have hope for you. You love to suggest that if there is no subway, people on the outskirts will have to ride their mule into town. I will take your response seriously once you start coming up with a reasonable defense or counter-proposal.

4) The reason utilities are paid for on a consumption basis is not simply because people "will waste it" if flat fee-only. It is because the usage levels are so dramatically different from abode to abode there is no more fair way to charge people other than on that which they consume. If abodes are the community are quite homogenous, then the community may tell their utility company or city council or neighborhood management association differently, of course. But at the end of the day, no matter what, the utility company has to pay for the raw resources which they purchased, and their consumers must ensure that balance owed is zero. Also, there is no incentive to conserve or purchase more efficient appliances, etc if strictly a flat fee. Water in NYC is free -- you do not see the front page of the NYT clamoring "water shortage," do you? You continue to ignore the things which are distance-based, usage-based, etc. so I will say no more. You are the one comparing apples to oranges. You also fail to provide a counter-point for that which you originally brought up and I replied to, so I take it you have seen the light.

5) Of course people win when mass transit is used. And even more to the point, people who ride the subway win when they pay for that which they consumed -- nothing more, nothing less! You seem intent on punishing those who utilize lesser resources by asking them to pay more than someone who rides for 20 km. Again, countless distance-based fare examples out there. Again, "cost" is made up of sub-costs, each differing from one scenario to the other. If you have 100 riders, and 90 of them get off within 5 stations and 10 of them go all the way until the end, please show me where the 10 people's costs are the same as the 90. If your plan was so good, so fair, city after city would not have adopted what I am arguing for. You forget (or are confused) that I am not asking those who ride 10km to pay for 20 km. No, I am asking those who ride 20 km to pay for 20 km, and those who ride 1 km to pay 1 km. And of course each passenger will continue to pay the fixed costs -- those are the same and can't be skirted, and am not asking for them to be skirted.

6) I never, EVER said stores inside stations would destroy that which is above ground. Please, copy and paste that so I can see where I typed that. I was explaining that if there was enough demand for station stores to offset additional costs (as you suggested as a remedy), do you not think the operators would've worked out a business deal with would-be vendors by now? And you again think it more fair to ask shop keepers to shoulder the burden? Oh, for heaven's sake, get on with it, mate! Stop trying to pass of your long-haul costs on to everyone else except yourself! Take a deep breath before you read, before getting yourself so full of emotion you fail to understand the words on the digital page. Who's the luddite? It's plain to see. There's no reason to call someone who disagrees with your argument -- and has presented countable claims and has actually backed up assertions I've made with actual reports or links or publication names -- such a term, but I guess it's what you do when the counter-arguments hold water, your claims have largely been called out, and you want to make this personal. You keep on trying to assert you own and determine fairness, and seem hell bent on trying to pass the buck onto the next guy.

7) "Is better than" is your opinion. The most fair way to charge people is based on what they use. This is exemplified in countless other modes of transport as well as subway transport; in this city and other municipalities.

8) "Less costs for all." Hogwash. Less cost for you and your Tongzhou brethren if those who use fewer resources continue to shoulder more than their fair share of the cost burden, but not less costs for ALL.

It's OK for you to disagree with me, but when you call things BS simply because you disagree with them, it doesn't make it so. Just like when you discounted my assertion that current fares were subsidized, or that HK Tramways could have a fixed fare because there was this thing called the MTR, and I showed you such could be verified, nullifying your claims and bringing you into the light, I fail to see much reasoning or support or evidence or solid ground theorizing put forth by you. People hold on to their opinions, for the strangest and easy-to-see reasons, but to base an argument simply on opinion is setting you up to be on the opposite side of the facts.

Yea, no kidding I benefit from the government testing medicine, because then we don't have an entire society of sick people dying and not beng productive members of the community.

In JUST the same way, we all benefit by having people use the subway to get into the city, rather than having them drive their packed mini vans, or three wheeled scooters. This is the point see?

There is however, a huge difference between energy and water consumption and getting on and off a subway. This seems to be a fundamental part of the equation you have a really hard time understanding. You know why you pay more for electricity when you use more, instead of a flat rate no matter how much you use? SO YOU WON'T USE TOO MUCH AND WASTE IT FOR OTHERS TO USE!!! Get it?? Using the subway is not a waste its a benefit for all! You can type a thousand page thesis if you like, but that aint going to change this simple fact, that undermines your whole distance costs more nonsense. Having subway lines that go to Changping and tongzhou and the suburbs means more people on the subway, less people in cars in buses, and more people paying for the subway. Everyone wins!

The rest you write is just BS frankly. Your silly arguments about having to hire more people to sell more advertising? Are you joking? About having stores inside the subway wil destroy those outside? So you are a luddite who doesn't believe in development? I said it once and you didn't get it, so I will try one last time. If there needs to be a fee increase, an across the board one which raises the fees only slightly, but for more people, is much better than one which raises the fee substantially for the few unlucky ones.

In other words, a community. A group society, where more people contributing, means less costs for all. I believe it is a concept first considered sometime around 1800 B.C. Perhaps earlier.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote with the same intensity that you are dying for migrant workers to get back to riding the public buses.

What I said was if the subway is really running at a loss, there are ways to increase revenues, including better in station advertising and shop rental fees. Likewise I said if they have to raise the fees do it across the board. Your constant refrain of "its high time people pay for what they use" does not apply to subways. Subways run no matter what. One persons use doesn't have ANY extra cost involved compared to others.

Of course many places charge based on how much you use. Many internet companies in America want to charge people to use the internet based on how much they use. Just because they can do it, doesn't make it good to do it. Are you in favor of paying for internet based on how many bits of data you download?

What is the goal of making people pay based on distance, you want less people using the subway? If that is not the goal, why would you care if a guy doesn't pay more than you, just because he happens to go to a stop that is a arbitrary distance away from yours? You keep saying its good because other citites do it that way. That doesn't make it good. We aren't robots that can't think, we don't have to do things because its the status quo. Other cities aren't Beijing.

You keep parroting the same refrain, but I don't see where you have said what is so good about it. I pay a management fee where I live, but I don't ride in the elevators as long as other people. I don't use public parks for taichi, I want my money to stop being used to subsidize them. I don't use medicine so plus don't waste my money testing the safety of drugs. I don't have kids, so plus let those who do pay for school construction themselves..

Its either that, or we analyze what things are in the public's good, not just is what is in the individual's good. The subway is for the public good, so we share the costs.

For me personally it's not a problem and it would be good to have less people on the subway during rush hour.

But for the Chinese, they generally have pretty low wages so I'd expect they'd be unhappy about a rise in payment; especially if they have to travel far. If they were forced to use the buses during the rush hour time, then it would take a very long time for them to get to work or home in the evening. You know what the roads are like here!

@Squid:

I will try and keep directly on point. I have a feeling you and I probably see quite eye-to-eye on general economic modeling and the role gov't-provided goods play in a society, but let me zero-in on the discussion at hand.

Yes, there are fixed operating costs which every rider, no matter the distance or number of lines used or body space they're taking up, should and do pay. But there are also costs whcih are greater based upon distance/duration one enjoys the service provided by the subway, and so should that not be dealt with in a more equitable manner to both the short- and long-distance rider and citizen of Beijing who never uses the subway but does appreciate the subsidies for other goods they use (oh, let's say roads!)?

If operating costs of the subway are going up, I believe it's fair to both the Dongsi and Changping rider alike to let those costs be the responsbility of those who directly use and benefit from the construction of a subway line, rather than say, take more monies from another public good to prop up the subway's operating budget. A hike that is handled by all is hardly fair to the hundreds of thousands of daily riders who go on a very short trip, and are paying exactly the same fare as those who commute greater distances. Why does a suburban bus rider pay, let's say ¥7 to get to his apartment, and not ¥1 like so many of the metro buses charge? Because for one, it requires more diesel to get to one's apartment in the 'burbs than the metro-based colleague, and as you've rightly pointed out, there are more users of the metro lines and thus, the costs are dealt with by a greater number of people. Metro buses go shorter routes, and when that person needs to transfer, they're given a discount. Add up the distance and it's likely very similar to that which Mr. Changping must traverse in order to get to his Dongsi place of work and home, and thus, the fares would probably come about quite even. But just like the bus that takes one to Changping, the energy costs for the subway to go there are greater than Dongsi to DZM, and also ridership numbers are lesser. From Bagou to Shuangjing, from Tiangongyuan to Olympic Park and all distances in between: pay for what you traverse is as equitable as it gets without dipping into the coffers of subsidies for other public goods and services.

Also, I think it wrong to assume that if subway fare is changed to distance-based, ridership will go down and the roads will become more clogged and society will be harmed and Mr. Changping will be unable to pay rent, or feed his kid, or milk his cow. Just like people take the subway for a variety of reasons, so too do those who do not take the subway. A fare hike or proposal thereof implies the operating budget is unable to support its costs with current and projectd revenues; I do not wish for people to pay more based upon where they live in relation to the 5th Ring Road or the Forbidden City or the CBD or some other arbitrary location, but instead merely the distance in which one stands inside a traveling subway car. I don't know the person's income or cost of living or equity accrued or debts incurred or anything else, but I do know how long they're taking up space in one of those cars and from that, I will charge them accordingly.

@chionke04:

No one is stating the current fare is not a tremendous steal of a deal -- indeed, see the image caption in which it's stated "the city's best deal." Well, I guess those who only take the subway for 2 stops might wonder why they're paying the same as someone who takes it 30 stops and a few transfers, but that discussion is already at hand. The questions are, is the current fare structure enabled for long-term successful subway operations? If costs are increasing, who should shoulder those increased costs? Should the subway mimic other modes of BJ transport (buses, taxis, etc.) and the same mode of transport operating in countless other cities by being distance-based, or should there continue to be one standard fare charged for all, no matter a granny riding for 2 minutes to the nearest wet market or the office worker with a 60-minute morning commute?

Your stance on bikes is a headscratcher, however. A bike problem is one Beijing wishes it had...there are cities the world over who would LOVE to have a bike problem. Bicyles don't require gov'ts to search for oil baron cronies and build-up of militaries to protect those interests, deal with inevitable oil spills which destroy environments and livelihoods, devote land & space to parking garages and fill up streets (and sidewalks) with idle autos, release pollutants into the air merely by using it, build endless roads and bridges and maintenance thereof, plague the citizenry with inactivity issues vs. exercise benefits from pedaling, etc.

mtnerror,

I live in Gumao and I drive. So what I am utilizing is called empathy. I don't want those who live in the far reaches of Beijing, an almost necessity with the crazy real estate and rental costs, to shoulder a burden that is disproportionately difficult for them. Poorer people live in the outside of Beijing, that is a general fact. There is a reason property prices go down the further you get from the fourth ring.

When more people contribute, the costs for public services go down. If you are only using the subway to get from Dongzhimen to Dongsi, you are still using the trains and incurring costs, so if they are paying the same as the poor schmuck who has to ride out to Changping, the guy in Changping is going to get socked. Your solution is to make that guy subsidize all the short riders. I don't like that. The goal of the subway is to get as many people as possible using it, not to get these people out of the subway and back to using surface roads, Beijing doesn't need any more of that. If there needs to be a slight increase, then raise a slight increase across the board and everyone contributes a little more. Or better still, improve advertising and store rental fees inside the stations, to recoup more money. Its called a society. Market capitalism without government assistance is not a great model for helping a society. Its a model for letting some get rich, and letting others suffer. Take a good look at America, the money continues to get congested higher and higher up the food chain, while the middle class is disappearing, and the lower class is drowning. Trickle down turns out to be a lie.

The "haves" live in one place, the "have nots" in another. Beijing subway system is a great deal, and it needs to stay that way. Shanghai's subway is not a great deal.

I do wonder, in response to mtnerror's comment about increase in staffing needs, if increased staffing might not be (a small) part of the motivation for this proposed fare hike... Unemployment IS a big problem here. Creating a few more pointless jobs to keep people employed, fed, quiet--always a good thing from the perspective of the Powers That Be, I think.

I'm hurt? Why are emotions all of a sudden pouring thru? Stay on topic, dear Squid. Read again. And stop skirting the question: supposing operational costs are increasing (perhaps due to collecting only ¥2 to pick up you and your dear brethren in Tongzhou), how would you like for that to be dealt with? There are only a couple of options which I have already outlined, and I'm looking forward to your answer.

Did you see me mention planes in my previous post? No, I did not, so get to it (the point still remains, however, in that planes charge distance-based fare).

The HK Tramway goes to a limited number of stops and operates on a small route of the island. Unless people live in a certain area, it's useless. Yes, grannies might use it to pick up their vegetables, and office workers to grab a lunch. I am not saying it's ONLY used by tourists, but I am saying its flat fee can't be used to compare with the MTR, nor bus service. The bus service which you and your brethren would use (because you would undoubtedly live in NT) is...get ready for it, distance-based!

I told you where i was getting the subsidy that is provided for each and every time you take the subway from Tongzhou, each and every time i pass your train on its way to Tongzhou. Yes, I'm well aware of Beijing's migrant population -- what made you think I was living under a rock? (Two of Beijing's issues are transporation and air quality, but to call them the biggest because perhaps that is what is most impactful to your life is a stretch. Public health, education, worker's rights, water sourcing and treatment, health costs...all of these could be argued to be on more Beijiner minds.)

Your refusal to believe that riders don't shoulder 100% of the costs doesn't mean it's so. You have to remember all of the associated costs with operating a subway...depot and inventory costs, repairmen, continuous cleaning of the train cars and stations, testing and monitoring and equipment of the lines and signals, ticket sales, ticket machines and their upkeep, signage, secruity personnel, training, energy (to run the trains, avoid the cars and stations from being pitch black, heat in winter and a/c in summer), drivers and platform staff, etc. If any one or several of these and their associated costs increase, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET THE MONEY FROM? INCREASED SUBSIDIES, BASE FARE RATE HIKE, OR DISTANCE-BASED FARE?

I notice things like that, Steven! Obviously I've looked at the map once or twice

map now updated to relatively recent version from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_subway

Typical Beijing....if it's not broke, fix it.

And hey Beijinger! Would it kill you to use a copy of the most receent subway map?

haha, such half a@@ed work in this town, so typical....

Squid, Yes, I have ridden public transport in both cities which you mentioned, and therefore am calling you out. One can't compare HK MTR with HK Tramways. The former is largely used by locals to get around the city, the latter largely by tourists. It would be the same in SF with the trolley and BART. Two completely different modes of transport for two completely different types of travelers. In that light, my comparison of BJ Subway rate formulation and other modes of transportion still seems to hold water. MTR uses distance-based fare. China Railways uses distance-based fare. Certain bus lines within the metro use distance-based fares (that's why you'll notice a meter next to the exit door). Our taxis too.

In city after city, country after country, passengers pay distance-based fare. Nanjing, Dalian, Shanghai, Osaka, Chicago...the list goes on and on -- for underground transport, light-rail, tolls, phone connections, etc. Do not assume people live in the BJ 'burbs because they can't afford it -- people live all over this city for a variety of reasons. Proximity to work, liking of a particular school, apartment design, natuarl scenary, shopping or store brand, proximity to major thoroughfares, availability of farmland, rental price, etc.

The part about subsidies can't be denied. You can check Wiki and the corresponding article (in Chinese) which supports the statement I made, in that the current fare is possible due to subsidies. I would argue a roughly 33% subsidy is considerable (i.e., if it stopped tomorrow, BJ Subway operations would shortly cease if rider-paid fare was not immediately increased). As far as the actual building of the lines, of course the people's money is used for that, too -- but they are not just up-front subsidies, my friend. Few municipal gov'ts would NOT be contributing taxpayer monies to such projects. There are one-time subsidies and ongoing subsidies, the same when gov'ts go to build roads, water mains, and the like. Also, it's not for me to say what are MTR's and BJ Subway's priorities, respectively. You are suggesting if BJ adopted the same pricing scheme used in other cities on the Mainlaind with similar cost of living and overheard figures, the operation would either be a "profit center" or no one from beyond X Ring Road would be able to come to the city, neither of which I am buying.

If the 2 operators of BJ Subway are coming to the municipal gov't and stating the current structure to continue their operating budget is unsustainable, the additional costs must shouldered by someone -- either riders or increase of subsidies. If not shouldered by the riders, which public programs would you like to take monies from to neutralize the deficit? And who are you to judge whether the current system is working just fine or not? Do you know the operating budgets and forecasted budgets and costs of our city's 2 lovely subway operators?

mtnerror,

Sorry, but I don't buy your analogies about planes and bus fares. Planes only stop at one place, its not like you can hop on and hop off anywhere along the way. Have you ever ridden street trams in cities like San Francisco or Hong Kong? You jump on and and get off anywhere you want, for one price. No one is subsidizing others riders, they simply charge a fee which allows them enough revenue to run the service-same for the subway.

I also don't agree with you that the subway is highly subsidized by tax dollars. The government pays for the intial construction of the subways-because they are aware of the benefits to the city, in terms of less pollution, less traffic, less wear on the infrastructure. But in a city like Beijing, where there is plenty of population using the trains, they can become self sustaning very quickly, and there is no need for public subsidies. Furthermore, it is certainly a much better model to keep the cost of the subway as low as possible for a city in such dire need as Beijing, rather that use a model like Hong Kongs which uses its MTR system as a profit center. Hong Kong people for the most part live a higher standard of living, and thus can more afford to use the transport, but Beijing's priority is not to make more money from the subways, its to relieve the road burden.

The bottom line is, if they go to a distance scale, it is going to cost more money for everyone, you can guarantee that. Do you really think they are going to charge less than two yuan for most distances? No chance.

though i can see it being hairy from a technological point of view, why not charge more from 7am-9am and 5pm-7pm, like make it 4 kuai and less on the off hours?

Actually I find the subway bearable most of the other times of the day, and a moderate hike might be enough to alter behavior

Mtnerror,

When you say the fare for the subway "should" be distance based, why is that? Who benefits from that? The trains still travel the route, regardelss how far you go on them. Buses charge one fare no matter where you get off.

Furthermore, making all stops different prices means that buying tickets is going to be even more troublesome then now, and everytime someone buys the wrong ticket, there will be lines to fix it at the exit.

So it is more troublesome for everyone, more expensive when the government should be encouraging more subway use, and serving no benefit to reducing city traffic. A lose-lose situation all around. You want it to be like shanghais?-riding subways there can get pretty expensive.