And the cutting begins

"The plan comprises of fare hikes of between 20%-30%, and service reductions that are currently being worked on," Reilly wrote. "The service reductions could force the carrier to furlough some of its employees. Executive Director Weinstein stated that specific details will be forthcoming within the next two weeks."

Reilly wrote that the service reductions would likely take effect in June. NJ Transit already cut nine train runs last month.

"I think the new governor is trying to scare everybody from riding the trains," Reilly said in an interview today.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/0 ... rns_of.htm

...and so it begins...

{edit} I don't have class until 5:45 tonight...maybe I'll go to the Public Hearing over at Penn Plaza this afternoon...2PM

That's good they are slating it for June.... at this point. It allows for public outcry and gives the NJ governor and goverment some time to react and let people stew a bit.

nick11a wrote:That's good they are slating it for June.... at this point. It allows for public outcry and gives the NJ governor and goverment some time to react and let people stew a bit.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same thing Corzine did with the tolls. Talk about a 60000% increase, and then let it die, and a few months later when no one's looking, bump them up to a buck.

How does the 11% decrease in the subsidy, which is somewhere around a 6 or 7% decrease in the entire budget result in a 30% increase in fares?

OportRailfan wrote:...and so it begins...

{edit} I don't have class until 5:45 tonight...maybe I'll go to the Public Hearing over at Penn Plaza this afternoon...2PM

The meeting at 2pm is not a public hearing, it's the Board Meeting that was rescheduled from last week. Still open to the public, just a different focus then a public hearing.

cruiser939 wrote:

OportRailfan wrote:...and so it begins...

{edit} I don't have class until 5:45 tonight...maybe I'll go to the Public Hearing over at Penn Plaza this afternoon...2PM

The meeting at 2pm is not a public hearing, it's the Board Meeting that was rescheduled from last week. Still open to the public, just a different focus then a public hearing.

Still can't hurt to be semi-informed. I wasn't planning on causing a ruckus anyway even if I could speak

Ken W2KB wrote:How does the 11% decrease in the subsidy, which is somewhere around a 6 or 7% decrease in the entire budget result in a 30% increase in fares?

Let's say I provide a service to you which costs me $10 to provide. Currently, I only charge you $5 for that service and everyone is happy. Now let's say that I'm only given $9 with which to provide you a service that still costs me $10. If I pass that extra dollar onto you, you're now paying $6 instead of $5, resulting in a 20% increase for you because of a 10% decrease to me. Not the perfect example but hopefully you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate.

OportRailfan wrote:

cruiser939 wrote:

OportRailfan wrote:...and so it begins...

{edit} I don't have class until 5:45 tonight...maybe I'll go to the Public Hearing over at Penn Plaza this afternoon...2PM

The meeting at 2pm is not a public hearing, it's the Board Meeting that was rescheduled from last week. Still open to the public, just a different focus then a public hearing.

Still can't hurt to be semi-informed. I wasn't planning on causing a ruckus anyway even if I could speak

Members of the public can still speak at a board meeting. Ruckuses are always appreciated as I need constant entertainment to make it through the day.

see you there then! ha

It should be noted in the quote lifted from the article, the 20-30% fare increase was something Mr. Reilly wrote in his letter to Union members. As the article state Mr. Reilly is the general chairman of the UTU.

It was not an official quote from nor was it confirmed by NJT management in the article.

So I will wait for an offical announcement from NJT on any proposed fare hikes...

cruiser939 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:How does the 11% decrease in the subsidy, which is somewhere around a 6 or 7% decrease in the entire budget result in a 30% increase in fares?

Let's say I provide a service to you which costs me $10 to provide. Currently, I only charge you $5 for that service and everyone is happy. Now let's say that I'm only given $9 with which to provide you a service that still costs me $10. If I pass that extra dollar onto you, you're now paying $6 instead of $5, resulting in a 20% increase for you because of a 10% decrease to me. Not the perfect example but hopefully you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate.

Right, since riders pay about half the cost, a 10% decrease in subsidies would directly mean a 20% increase in fares. But there's more. If you raise prices 20%, some people will stop using it, or use it less often. That means to you really need a more than 20% increase to come back to even. Hence I'd imagine 20-30%.

cruiser939 wrote:

Ken W2KB wrote:How does the 11% decrease in the subsidy, which is somewhere around a 6 or 7% decrease in the entire budget result in a 30% increase in fares?

Let's say I provide a service to you which costs me $10 to provide. Currently, I only charge you $5 for that service and everyone is happy. Now let's say that I'm only given $9 with which to provide you a service that still costs me $10. If I pass that extra dollar onto you, you're now paying $6 instead of $5, resulting in a 20% increase for you because of a 10% decrease to me. Not the perfect example but hopefully you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate.

Your approach is correct, but the $1 cut in your example is 20%, not 10% of the subsidy as reportedly proposed by the Governor. The $10 cost consists of $5 from subsidy and $5 from fares. A 10% decrease in subsidy is 50 cents, resultant in a 5% shortfall. Making up the 5% shortfall will require a 10% fare increase as your methodology indicates.

I pay $246 a month to NJT for my commute, and the extra $25 of a 10% increase would not come close to making driving an economic alternative.

I pay $246 a month to NJT for my commute, and the extra $25 of a 10% increase would not come close to making driving an economic alternative

There is clearly some level of pain that can be absorbed by riders. I think the problem is what level of service cuts will start to make it not just uneconomical, but no longer feasible for many riders. I'm betting the 10% is the real number we are going to see, but I am more concerned about service cuts.

...I thought that I read in today's Asbury Park Press a comment to the effect that in addition to the State subsidy cut proposed by Christie, that there was also a fairly large Federal subsidy to NJT that was either set to expire or was cancelled by Washington...