Staten Island ferry -- free?
Sep 4th, 2012, 05:52 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staten Island ferry -- free?
Last Saturday we took the Staten Island ferry for a visit to South Beach - a great cool spot overlooking entrance to NY Harbor. We took the ferry at about 3 pm and there was a crowd of at least a thousand people waiting for it. And apparently this is not unusual -- thousands and thousands of passengers on this free ferry ride. Spoke to several around us and almost all were tourists or those just going for the ferry ride and they take the next ferry back. Why should this ferry be free for these passengers?
I can understand free for Staten Island residents who are hit with double or triple fares to get from their part of the city to Manhattan. But the city is operating this ferry at a huge expense for passengers who can well afford to pay a fare. Bloomberg: where are you when we need you?
I can understand free for Staten Island residents who are hit with double or triple fares to get from their part of the city to Manhattan. But the city is operating this ferry at a huge expense for passengers who can well afford to pay a fare. Bloomberg: where are you when we need you?
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:29 AM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't used to be free.
NYC realized, MANY decades ago, that the cost of ensuring that only paying customers would get to ride the ferry (gates, ticket sellers, security, ticket checkers) wouldn't equal the amount they would collect in fares. When the cost of selling a product exceeds what you would collect in sales, you may as well give it away.
Unless you think NYC should lose MORE money by charging pedestrians to ride.
NYC realized, MANY decades ago, that the cost of ensuring that only paying customers would get to ride the ferry (gates, ticket sellers, security, ticket checkers) wouldn't equal the amount they would collect in fares. When the cost of selling a product exceeds what you would collect in sales, you may as well give it away.
Unless you think NYC should lose MORE money by charging pedestrians to ride.
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:59 AM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two problems with this:
It would not pay for itself - the ferry used to be pay for all - and it was stopped, not just because it was unfair to those living on Staten Island - but the fare would have to be onerous to even cover the cost of collecting it
As you noted there are many thousands of people riding the ferry every day - and forcing all of them to either pay or show some permit upon boarding would significanty increase the amount of time it would take for each trip - delaying everyone
The city parks are free too - should we look for a way to charge tourists for using them as well?
It would not pay for itself - the ferry used to be pay for all - and it was stopped, not just because it was unfair to those living on Staten Island - but the fare would have to be onerous to even cover the cost of collecting it
As you noted there are many thousands of people riding the ferry every day - and forcing all of them to either pay or show some permit upon boarding would significanty increase the amount of time it would take for each trip - delaying everyone
The city parks are free too - should we look for a way to charge tourists for using them as well?
Sep 4th, 2012, 10:24 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great many tourists choose to stay in a hotel rather than sleep on park benches. If you are among the former, you will notice that the city collects a sizable chunk of change as part of your stay.
It all evens out, more or less.
It all evens out, more or less.
Sep 4th, 2012, 10:42 AM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
The same argument could be made for riding the subway - but modern technology makes collecting fares reasonable. Moreover, the interval between ferries is long enough to arrange fare collecting -- metro card style. There just is no reason why it should be free for non-residents of S.I. BTW -- if you want to comment on an inefficient and expensive way to collect fares - check the LIRR -- conductors punching tickets - that's what they did in 1860.
The same argument could be made for riding the subway - but modern technology makes collecting fares reasonable. Moreover, the interval between ferries is long enough to arrange fare collecting -- metro card style. There just is no reason why it should be free for non-residents of S.I. BTW -- if you want to comment on an inefficient and expensive way to collect fares - check the LIRR -- conductors punching tickets - that's what they did in 1860.
Sep 4th, 2012, 11:04 AM
#8
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>
Tourists don't directly pay for using police services. They don't directly pay for visiting parks, or using public restrooms. There are lots of things they don't pay for directly, but they do pay in the form of hotel taxes and sales taxes on goods purchased.
Tourists don't directly pay for using police services. They don't directly pay for visiting parks, or using public restrooms. There are lots of things they don't pay for directly, but they do pay in the form of hotel taxes and sales taxes on goods purchased.
Sep 4th, 2012, 11:38 AM
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
Of course tourists don't pay directly for police services -- neither do any New York City residents. It comes out of the general revenue. And -- tourists contribute heavily to the general revenue -- 45 million of them in a year. Tourists contribute to a good part of the New York City budget via all of their expenditures. But -- that is no excuse for providing them with free transportation services. You might want to argue that all transportation in the city should be free since it contributes to the general economy. But we don't do that -- you have to pay to use transportation facilities. Why should the SI ferry be exempt? No logical reason.
Of course tourists don't pay directly for police services -- neither do any New York City residents. It comes out of the general revenue. And -- tourists contribute heavily to the general revenue -- 45 million of them in a year. Tourists contribute to a good part of the New York City budget via all of their expenditures. But -- that is no excuse for providing them with free transportation services. You might want to argue that all transportation in the city should be free since it contributes to the general economy. But we don't do that -- you have to pay to use transportation facilities. Why should the SI ferry be exempt? No logical reason.
Sep 4th, 2012, 01:50 PM
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
Staten Island residents are residents of the city and pay city taxes. Because of an accident of geography they should not have to pay more than other residents to go from one part of the city to another. The same was true of Rockaway residents. Years ago they had to pay a double fare to get into the city -- but that was changed and it's one fare for them. Ditto tolls on the Cross Bay Bridge for Rockaway residents -- tolls were eliminated for Rockaway residents since they were going from one part of the same boro to another.
Moreover -- Staten Island residents will not travel "for free" -- they simply will not have an extra charge for the ferry -- same as other city residents pay one fare when riding a subway and then a bus. But there simply is no good reason to give a free ride for pleasure seekers who want a nice view of the Statue of Liberty.
Staten Island residents are residents of the city and pay city taxes. Because of an accident of geography they should not have to pay more than other residents to go from one part of the city to another. The same was true of Rockaway residents. Years ago they had to pay a double fare to get into the city -- but that was changed and it's one fare for them. Ditto tolls on the Cross Bay Bridge for Rockaway residents -- tolls were eliminated for Rockaway residents since they were going from one part of the same boro to another.
Moreover -- Staten Island residents will not travel "for free" -- they simply will not have an extra charge for the ferry -- same as other city residents pay one fare when riding a subway and then a bus. But there simply is no good reason to give a free ride for pleasure seekers who want a nice view of the Statue of Liberty.
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:05 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly, JRoth, you still haven't dealt with the first question I asked you -- do you want NYC to lose MORE money by implementing a fare system, as it did many decades ago? Or are you one of these people who contends, "I don't care if it costs MORE money for the government -- I just want to see greater suffering and inconvenience for people!"
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:49 PM
#13
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - the equivalent argument would be that since the subway is heavily supported by taxes that tourists should pay more than locals to ride the subway.
This would make a huge mess - just as would doing the same for the SI ferry.
As for the RRs - they have people getting on and off at all different stops at all times of days - at widely differnt prices. How do you propose they create an automatic system for that - when they can;t even keep the escalators running?
This would make a huge mess - just as would doing the same for the SI ferry.
As for the RRs - they have people getting on and off at all different stops at all times of days - at widely differnt prices. How do you propose they create an automatic system for that - when they can;t even keep the escalators running?
Sep 4th, 2012, 06:58 PM
#15
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NYTraveler, I'm not advocating a system-wide change, just oointing out the "subway" systems in many cities do have automatic fare-takers that calculate fare by distance ridden. On BART (and in DC, which happen to use the same system), you put in your fare card both at the beginning and end of your trip and the correct fare is deducted. So it is possible, although it would take a retrofit of every station on the line.
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:42 AM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
According to that reasoning, the subways and buses should also be free and the MTA could thus save big money by not having to install a fare collection system and maintain it. And - I'm not sure how much it would cost to install subway type turnstiles at ferry terminals that could accept a metro card swipe. This would only involve installing turnstiles in 2 terminals and such an investment pays for itself over the years. As far as "suffering and inconvenience " for people. I'm not sure how much suffering would be involved for a passenger to swipe his metro card.
According to that reasoning, the subways and buses should also be free and the MTA could thus save big money by not having to install a fare collection system and maintain it. And - I'm not sure how much it would cost to install subway type turnstiles at ferry terminals that could accept a metro card swipe. This would only involve installing turnstiles in 2 terminals and such an investment pays for itself over the years. As far as "suffering and inconvenience " for people. I'm not sure how much suffering would be involved for a passenger to swipe his metro card.
Sep 5th, 2012, 04:58 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> According to that reasoning, the subways and buses should also be free
> and the MTA could thus save big money by not having
> to install a fare collection system and maintain it.
No, because SOME methods of mass transit are less costly if you allow people to use it free, SOME methods are less costly if you set up a system to charge people for it.
> This would only involve installing turnstiles in 2 terminals
> and such an investment pays for itself over the years.
Are you forgetting the cost of setting up the barriers to ensure that people don't around the terminals, as well as the cost of security guards to make sure that people don't simply go around or over the barriers, as well as the cost of making barriers that will allow hundreds of people to quickly leave the boat when it docks, but still prevent others to get on? Or do you think there simply needs to be a sign that says, "This area, which allows hundreds of people to exit the boat in a matter of minutes, can not be used by people trying to get on the boat."
You continue to ignore the simple fact that the Staten Island Ferry used to charge pedestrians, but stopped doing so many years ago. The reason the NYC MTA did so was simple: they realized that your idea was completely wrong, that it is more costly to charge admission. Just admit it, once and for all: your idea has been tried, it's been tested, and YOU'RE WRONG. Okay? I know facts may be hard to deal with, but this is just something you'll just have to deal with.
BTW, paying for something is an inconvenience. I'm not sure why you want government to spend more money just so you can have the enjoyment of watching people paying for the Ferry.
> and the MTA could thus save big money by not having
> to install a fare collection system and maintain it.
No, because SOME methods of mass transit are less costly if you allow people to use it free, SOME methods are less costly if you set up a system to charge people for it.
> This would only involve installing turnstiles in 2 terminals
> and such an investment pays for itself over the years.
Are you forgetting the cost of setting up the barriers to ensure that people don't around the terminals, as well as the cost of security guards to make sure that people don't simply go around or over the barriers, as well as the cost of making barriers that will allow hundreds of people to quickly leave the boat when it docks, but still prevent others to get on? Or do you think there simply needs to be a sign that says, "This area, which allows hundreds of people to exit the boat in a matter of minutes, can not be used by people trying to get on the boat."
You continue to ignore the simple fact that the Staten Island Ferry used to charge pedestrians, but stopped doing so many years ago. The reason the NYC MTA did so was simple: they realized that your idea was completely wrong, that it is more costly to charge admission. Just admit it, once and for all: your idea has been tried, it's been tested, and YOU'RE WRONG. Okay? I know facts may be hard to deal with, but this is just something you'll just have to deal with.
BTW, paying for something is an inconvenience. I'm not sure why you want government to spend more money just so you can have the enjoyment of watching people paying for the Ferry.
Sep 5th, 2012, 05:04 AM
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
Tourists are paying substantial taxes that wind up in the city coffers -- and there are over 45 million of them -- so they are already contributing for subway service (and other services) just as local taxpayers.
>
I am not a technology specialist but I do know that automated systems are being installed in various transportation locales. E.g. many buses now have a pay first before you get on and pick up the receipt from a machine. To enforce it -- from time to time inspectors board to verify a passenger has paid. The reality here is that the system is 99% self enforcing -- everybody knows what's what and they pay their fare. Similar inspectors could be assigned to various stations to inspect receipts. Or - a similar system as Bart and elsewhere. The real problem here is not the design of a working automated system but rather the resistance of the railroad unions. High paying jobs with all sorts of benefits and the recently uncovered disability retirement scandals.
The argument that installation of new tech systems can be costly thus making it impractical could also be made for many industries that have installed -- at great cost -- new automated systems. But these industries - which are in the business of making profits -- have invested huge sums in the new technology and they reap substantial financial rewards.
Tourists are paying substantial taxes that wind up in the city coffers -- and there are over 45 million of them -- so they are already contributing for subway service (and other services) just as local taxpayers.
>
I am not a technology specialist but I do know that automated systems are being installed in various transportation locales. E.g. many buses now have a pay first before you get on and pick up the receipt from a machine. To enforce it -- from time to time inspectors board to verify a passenger has paid. The reality here is that the system is 99% self enforcing -- everybody knows what's what and they pay their fare. Similar inspectors could be assigned to various stations to inspect receipts. Or - a similar system as Bart and elsewhere. The real problem here is not the design of a working automated system but rather the resistance of the railroad unions. High paying jobs with all sorts of benefits and the recently uncovered disability retirement scandals.
The argument that installation of new tech systems can be costly thus making it impractical could also be made for many industries that have installed -- at great cost -- new automated systems. But these industries - which are in the business of making profits -- have invested huge sums in the new technology and they reap substantial financial rewards.
Sep 5th, 2012, 05:21 AM
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
The problem with the above is that it assumes that the public is out to beat a fare collecting system -- that we have a population of fare beaters. Just not so. When a fare collection system is in place 99% adhere to it. There is the occasional fare beater - some smart ass kid.
>
But you are talking about the days before modern technology. And even today's technology is getting passe -- I understand the Transit Authority is already envisioning a more efficient system than the current metro card swipe -- and they are preparing to introduce it in the future -- all these things cost investment money -- but these things do pay off over time.
I absolutely agree with you on that. I wish my supermarket would realize this or Macy's or the IRS.
The problem with the above is that it assumes that the public is out to beat a fare collecting system -- that we have a population of fare beaters. Just not so. When a fare collection system is in place 99% adhere to it. There is the occasional fare beater - some smart ass kid.
>
But you are talking about the days before modern technology. And even today's technology is getting passe -- I understand the Transit Authority is already envisioning a more efficient system than the current metro card swipe -- and they are preparing to introduce it in the future -- all these things cost investment money -- but these things do pay off over time.
I absolutely agree with you on that. I wish my supermarket would realize this or Macy's or the IRS.
Sep 5th, 2012, 06:00 AM
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/05/ny...s-reality.html
See the above article from the NY Times (1997) when the SI ferry bacame free. It is clear that the reason it became free is that the mayor felt it was unfair to residents of SI that they had to pay an extra fare to access their city. That's why free was introduced -- not to save money involved in collecting fares. And I agree with that reasoning -- it should be free for the residents of SI. But tourists and pleasure riders should pay for this ride especially since the 15 years have passed since the inception of free it has become a great attraction for tourists. It was never intended as a free ride for pleasure seekers and S of L viewers.
See the above article from the NY Times (1997) when the SI ferry bacame free. It is clear that the reason it became free is that the mayor felt it was unfair to residents of SI that they had to pay an extra fare to access their city. That's why free was introduced -- not to save money involved in collecting fares. And I agree with that reasoning -- it should be free for the residents of SI. But tourists and pleasure riders should pay for this ride especially since the 15 years have passed since the inception of free it has become a great attraction for tourists. It was never intended as a free ride for pleasure seekers and S of L viewers.
