[jbooth]

"what the market will bear" isn't necessarily appropriate for a public good, though.

It might maximize ticket revenue if they priced some people out of taking the train. Doesn't maximize good for the city, or even revenue for the city if some marginal person decides to stay home instead of going to work.

[rayiner]

Maximizing ticket revenue allows the system to offer better service for everyone who uses it. To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income). In any event, whatever the desirable range may be, having fares that are only about half as much as in the closest comparable city with a well-functioning subway (London), is clearly outside that range.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Maximizing ticket revenue allows the system to offer better service for everyone who uses it

So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?

> To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income).

Please provide examples of this working in practice.

It doesn't seem to work for healthcare, education, etc.

The places with "good" healthcare, education, transportation, internet, etc, don't make it expensive and then hand out vouchers to poor people. They make it free or so cheap everyone can afford it.

[rayiner]

> So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?

Most people can afford a $5 subway ticket.

> Please provide examples of this working in practice.

London Tube fares range from 2.4 to 5.1 pounds. That’s $3.50-$8.00 using typical exchange rates, versus just $2.75 for the NYC metro. Somehow non-rich people in London manage.