The accompanying PowerPoint relates to the assignment completed for graduate course PAD 771 (Capstone).

1. Current Fare Structure of New York
City Transit Authority and What It
Means for Low Income Residents
Policy Analyst, Andre Johnson

2. How Can State Transportation Policy Be Amended So that
New York City’s Low-Income Residents Have Greater
Economic Access to Public Transit Services?

3. Action Forcing Event
• March 2015 Release of “Rising Fares at the Turnstile- The entry is becoming
the barrier to economic mobility for low income New Yorkers.”

4. Assessment of the Problem
• 33% of residents surveyed reported unaffordable transit fares as biggest
hardship.
• The unaffordability of transit fare is more prevalent than threatened
foreclosure/eviction and postponed medical care/surgery combined
(Community Services Society, 2015).
• Earnings for the city’s low income households have remained stagnant yet
transit fares have continued increasing.

5. Literature Review
• Reduced fare structures for low income riders traces as far back as 1973
(Frankena).
• Though the concept or reduced fare for low income riders isn’t new, its
practical application is (Johnson, 2015).
• Public transit is meant to serve as a “government aid program to help poor
people who lack cars” (Stromberg 2015).

6. Literature Review
• NYC Public Advocate Letitia James insists that residents should never have
to chose between going to a job interview or putting food on the table
(Donahue, 2015).
• In a NY Daily News article, Paddock and Ryley draw the link between fare
evasion and the unaffordability of public transit (2014).
• Minimal transportation linkages between worker and employer is a common
precursor to welfare dependence (Wachs and Taylor, 1998).

7. Best Practices
• 1) Seattle’s ORCA Lift Program-Reduces fare up to 50% for residents whose
income is less than 200% of the federal poverty line (Johnson, 2015).
• 2) Madison, Wisconsin-Reduces fare for residents whose income is at or
below 150% of the federal poverty line (Jones and Rankin, 2014).
• 3) Charleston, South Carolina-Provides low income riders a 43% reduction in
fare. Regular fare is $1.75. Reduced fare is $1 (Jones and Rankin, 2014).

8. Stakeholders
• Bill De Blasio (Mayor of NYC)
• Leticia James (Public Advocate of NYC)
• David R. Jones (C.E.O. of advocacy group Community Service Society)
• Jeffrey Dinowitz (NYS Assemblyman)
• MTA Board of Directors

9. Policy Options
• 1) Mandate a reduced fare structure for low income riders that provides a
50% reduction for residents with income that is less than 200% of the
federal poverty line.
• 2) Mandate a sliding scale of transit fares that is similar to income taxes, i.e.
wealthy and middle income riders pay higher fares than low income riders.
• 3) Do nothing.

10. Recommendation
• Policy #2
• Cost Effective
• Would not alienate non low income riders (Leung, 2015)
• The most equitable option