Observing and documenting where, when, and how ridership patterns changed throughout the subway system as a result of congestion pricing presents an opportunity to identify where demand could warrant increased service and investment. In this report, we analyze ridership changes at subway stations across the city between 2024 and 2025 at various times of day and into the Congestion Relief Zone (CRZ). 

Above all else, the below analysis shows that the worst-case scenario that anti-Congestion Pricing fearmongers purported is objectively false: considerably more riders are traveling using the subway than before Congestion Pricing began, and people are indeed still traveling to and from Manhattan’s Congestion Relief Zone.  

Key Findings

• Between 2024 and 2025, total systemwide ridership grew from 1.21 to nearly 1.3 billion riders – a 7.7% increase 
• Weekend ridership grew at larger rates than the overall citywide average: Total weekend ridership grew by 9.4% – a total increase of 21,880,420 riders 
• 39 stations saw full-year ridership grow more than 20%    
• Times Square-42^nd St saw the largest overall increase in rides between 2024 and 2025 with 2,564,747 new riders, a 5.6% increase 
• The Bedford Avenue L station had the largest overall increase in rides on weekends in 2025 with 555,760 new riders, a 23.7% increase 
• Only 38 stations saw ridership decreases in 2025, including 12 stations that had significant service impacts due to the reconstruction of the Hammels Wye on the Rockway Peninsula 
• To the CRZ:  
  • AM peak subway trips to the CRZ grew by a daily average of 40,589, or 7%  
  • Weekend trips to the CRZ grew by a daily average of 60,035, or 7.5%  
  • Total rides to the CRZ grew by an estimated 20,182,143, or 7.1%  
  • 95 out of 424 stations saw more than 20% growth in ridership to the CRZ on weekends vs just 31 stations during AM-Peak.  
• 100 stations saw 20% or higher ridership on weekends in 2025 than 2024 
• System-wide ridership growth slightly outpaced ridership growth to the CRZ, indicating a higher share of riders going to non-CRZ stations: 7% AM-peak and 7.5% weekend growth to CRZ, vs. 7.7% all year and 9.4% weekend growth system wide. 

Recommendations 

• Invest in increased weekend subway service where needed 
• Continue and expand Governor Hochul’s investment in the MTA’s operating funding    
• Supplement demand for weekend service by increasing service on parallel bus routes, speeding up shuttle buses, and ensure all shuttle buses for planned service outages are trackable on the MTA app and other trip planning apps 
• Continue targeted subway service increases during weekdays based on ridership growth   
• Follow the scheduled increase in Congestion Pricing rates as required by the Re-evaluation and VPPP agreement 
• Expand fare discounts and transfer options between the subway, bus, and commuter rail   
• Increase bus service and speeds around the five boroughs   

Analysis 

Trips originating outside Manhattan increased the most between 2024 and 2025; the Bronx had the largest ridership gains, followed by Brooklyn. Manhattan saw the smallest increase in ridership, just below the overall citywide average.  

To put these numbers in historical context, the 1.299 billion rides in 2025 was roughly the same as 1999’s ridership, and 76.5% of 2019’s 1.698 billion rides. Following two years of significantly depressed ridership in 2020 and 2021, ridership grew by 33% in 2022 and 15.6% in 2023 before declining to only 3.7% growth in 2024.Ridership recovery on the weekends post-pandemic has continued to outpace weekday ridership.   

Figure 1: Total Change in Subway Ridership between 2024 and 2025 by Station 

Subway ridership grew substantially around the system in 2025, with a 7.7% increase overall. Subway stations with an above average growth in ridership are indicated in purple in Figure 1, above. Stations in the South and East Bronx, East New York, Cypress Hills, Williamsburg, and Western Queens saw some of the largest ridership gains. The Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway L train stop saw the largest overall ridership increase by raw volume, with 2025 ridership over three times its 2024 ridership, and was the only non-Congestion Relief Zone station in the top eight by volume.  

Figure 2: Change in Weekend Subway Ridership between 2024 and 2025 by Station

Across the city, weekend ridership boomed between 2024 and 2025. Ridership on weekends grew 9.4% over this period, outpacing the average of 7.7% across all time periods, indicating that weekends and discretionary trips in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx are largely driving overall ridership increases. The Bedford Ave L train station saw the largest raw number of new trips in 2025 compared to 2024, outpacing even tourist hubs like Times Square — Bedford Ave saw 555,760 more weekend rides than in 2024, followed by Times Square with 550,287. While many stations in the Congestion Relief Zone saw large numbers of new riders between 2024 and 2025, stations outside of Manhattan saw the largest percentage change in weekend trips during this period.  

Figure 3: Change in AM Peak Subway Trips into the Congestion Relief Zone between 2024 and 2025 by Station 

Morning peak ridership into the Congestion Relief Zone increased 7.1% overall. This is on pace with but slightly below the overall yearly ridership growth of 7.7%, indicating that rush hour trips did not account for the majority of ridership growth. This could be attributed to the fact that the majority of workers in the Congestion Relief Zone were already commuting using transit before Congestion Pricing went into effect, and continued to do so afterwards. The stations that saw the largest percentage change increase of trips into the Zone during the morning rush are concentrated in neighborhoods including East New York and the East Bronx, along with stations directly outside of Manhattan in neighborhoods like Long Island City, Brooklyn Heights, and Downtown Brooklyn. While the data is not conclusive enough to confirm, this could indicate that some commuters who may have driven into the Congestion Relief Zone in the past have opted to drive or walk to stations directly outside the zone, than take the subway. 

Figure 4: Change in Weekend Subway Trips into the Congestion Relief Zone between 2024 and 2025 by Station   

Weekend ridership into the Congestion Relief Zone increased 7.5% overall, just slightly below the overall citywide average of 7.7%. While trips into the Zone have increased definitively between 2024 and 2025, both during the morning peak and the weekends, discretionary travel around the five boroughs has driven ridership gains the most (Figure 2). Bedford Ave on the L train saw the largest ridership growth by volume on weekends into the Congestion Relief Zone, indicating that this station may be experiencing a boom in tourism in addition to housing growth. The stations with the largest percent change increases in weekend ridership to the Congestion Relief Zone are concentrated along the L line in Brooklyn, the B and D trains in the Bronx, and scattered throughout the boroughs; it’s important to note that some of these ridership increases may be attributed to service outages in 2024.   

Recommendations

Invest in increased weekend subway service where needed 

Weekend ridership has steadily increased both post-COVID and post-Congestion Pricing, outpacing weekday growth. Capacity remains in some parts of the system, yet subway service remains less frequent on than on weekdays, missing opportunities to support rider demand. Subway improvement projects and General Outages (GOs) are necessary on weekends and late nights, which complicates providing increased service where needed, but service could be increased on lines and weekends when these outages are not scheduled. 

Continue and expand Governor Hochul’s investment in the MTA’s operating funding  

Governor Hochul and the state legislature have steadfastly committed to funding the MTA’s operating budget. As the need for increased service rises, so will the need for additional investment in the MTA’s operations.  

Supplement demand for weekend service by increasing service on parallel bus routes, speeding up shuttle buses, and ensure all shuttle buses for planned service outages are trackable on the MTA app and other trip planning apps   

Shuttle buses are currently used to fill in gaps when subway outages occur during General Outages (GOs), most commonly during weekends and late nights. But when riders are planning their trips, these shuttle buses are often not trackable on the MTA’s app or other trip planning apps and websites, making it difficult to determine the best route and time journeys. All shuttle buses supplementing subway service should be trackable on the MTA and other trip planning apps.  

Continue targeted subway service increases during weekdays based on ridership growth 

In 2025, the MTA announced and implemented service improvements on the L train during rush hours based on demand and crowding at hub stations. This was a great example of using data to target specific service improvements and find creative ways—such as turning around trains earlier in their runs to add additional capacity during peak hours—to work with current rolling stock and workforce while improving service. 

Follow the scheduled increase in Congestion Pricing rates as required by the Re-evaluation and VPPP agreement 

Congestion Pricing is working. While ridership is going up citywide, it’s clear that Congestion Pricing is leading to better air quality, transit improvements, faster traffic speeds, and safer streets. Riders are traveling into and around the Congestion Relief Zone at higher rates than before. To continue to see benefits from this transformational program, it’s important that the scheduled rate increases proceed as initially planned. 

Expand fare discounts and transfer options between the subway, bus, and commuter rail 

Many of the stations and neighborhoods that saw the largest ridership gains are also served by the LIRR and Metro-North, including in the Bronx, East New York, and Eastern Queens. Offering joint tickets between the Railroads and New York City Transit would help ensure that all riders can afford the fastest trip available to them. 

Increase bus service and speeds around the five boroughs 

Demand for transit is increasing, and as subway ridership continues to bounce back, it’s also important to improve bus service so that riders have ample options for traveling around the five boroughs. PCAC’s BRT for the Boroughs report lays out recommendations for speeding up buses and implementing true Bus Rapid Transit in New York City. 

Additional Considerations 

This report aims to identify high-level trends in ridership and hypothesizes about why these trends have occurred. It’s important to note that many factors contribute to ridership changes, including but not limited to: policies like congestion pricing; changes in fare enforcement; new housing growth; service outages and planned work; and major events. The findings and analysis of this report open additional questions about factors that drive ridership growth at the station and line-level, and can lead to future research projects.  

Methodology 

Two datasets were used to create this report, the MTA’s hourly subway ridership dataset (Beginning 2025 and 2020 – 2024) and the MTA’s origin destination dataset (Beginning 2025 and 2024).  

MTA’s hourly subway ridership data counts the number of swipes and taps into each station complex (stations that are connected where you can walk between platforms without leaving the system) every 15 minutes for the entire year. This data was aggregated and summarized to give the total amounts of station rides per station for each calendar year, or filtered based on day of week to result in total weekend ridership. This data does not count unpaid rides, but does count every form of paid ride, including MetroCard swipes, ONMY taps, Fair Fares cards, etc.  

MTA’s origin-destination ridership data records when each individual card enters the system, and assumes where the next time that same card enters the system was the destination for that first trip. Though not perfect, it is generally accepted that this is a sufficient method of recording the ridership between every pair of two stations on the system at every hour of every day of the year. This data was filtered for time of day and day of the week as well as filtered for destinations in the CRZ only, then summed and averaged to create a daily average number of rides to the CRZ from each station outside the CRZ. The time/day were 5am – 9:30am M-F for AM-peak trips, as defined by the MTA; and 9am – 9pm Saturday and Sunday combined for weekend trips. This means that trips for the AM-peak represent an average for a single morning of ridership while the weekend to CRZ map represents average ridership across two days, Saturday and Sunday. 

For both of these datasets, general outages (GOs) from station renovation or line work may have impacted the ridership growth represented in this report. GOs in 2024 would show higher growth than what would be expected, while GOs in 2025 would show lower growth than what would be expected. While not perfect, using data from across the entire year helps smooth over this “missing data” from service outages. For example, ridership growth on the G train may actually be lower than depicted. We have no way to fully and empirically account for GOs in the data, so we decided to show the data as it is without interference. 

Acknowledgements

Report Author: 

Benjy Ross, Intern, PCAC

Kara Gurl, Planning and Advocacy Manager, PCAC

Editors:

Brian Fritsch, Associate Director, PCAC

Lisa Daglian, Executive Director, PCAC

Special Thanks To:

Stuart Goldstein, New York City Transit Riders Council Member

Andrew Albert, Chair of the New York City Transit Riders Council and MTA Board Member

The post Ridership Returns: Mapping Post-Congestion Pricing Ridership Trends appeared first on PCAC.

• Rider Representation Act — S.1148/A.1162 (Gounardes/Dinowitz) 

Empowers representatives of NYC Transit, LIRR, and Metro-North riders with voting MTA Board seats; creates a new voting City-appointed board member to advocate for riders with disabilities.  

• R.I.D.E.R. Act — S.7679/A.8169 (Gounardes/Rosenthal) 

Codifies independence of PCAC and rider councils. Broadens slate of elected officials eligible to recommend members to the MTA’s three advisory councils. Guarantees regional representation on such councils by providing interim service.  

• Relates to the LIRR Commuter Council — S.5164/A.5134 (Comrie/Solages) 

Increases public participation on the Council by decreasing the required number of members recommended by the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, and Kings Counties from three members each to one member each, which has severely limited nominations.  

• Open meetings law reform — S.1027/A.3615 (May/Simone) 

Improves upon provisions of the open meetings law set to expire this year to allow members of the public and appointed members of boards and advisory committees such as PCAC and its Councils to participate in remote meetings and count toward a quorum.  

Transit Affordability and Access:  

• One City, One Fare Act — S.8620/A.9395 (Comrie/Hevesi) 

Directs the MTA to conduct a field study of a unified city fare zone across the LIRR and Metro-North that includes joint railroad tickets and weekly CityTickets with free transfers to subways and buses for all intracity (within NYC) trips – growing intracity ridership and enhancing transit for New Yorkers in subway deserts. 

• Ride N.Y. Act — S.####/A.#### (TBD/Carroll)  

Directs the Departments of Transportation, Motor Vehicles, and Office of General Services, in tandem with transit providers around New York State, to begin an integrated travel project; enabling contactless fare payment, simplified enrollment in reduced-fare programs for veteran, disabled, senior, and Medicare-eligible New Yorkers, and standardized transit information statewide. 

• Sustainable Housing and Sprawl Prevention Act — S.3492A/A.6283A (May/Kelles) 

In addition to destroying 64,000 acres of New York’s forest land between 2001 and 2019 (RPA), urban sprawl makes transit service cost prohibitive. This legislation promotes infill development, allowing riders to live closer to the transit they depend on. 

CONTACT: Brian Fritsch, Brian.Fritsch@mtahq.org, 319-432-8503 

The post PCAC’s 2026 Legislative Agenda appeared first on PCAC.

Universal Affordable Transit for New York

First launched in 2019, Fair Fares offers half-fare subway, bus, and paratransit rides to low-income New Yorkers ages 18-64, and is a crucial lifeline of affordability for over 360,000 currently enrolled New Yorkers.  After years of pressure on City Hall from Council members, advocates, and riders to launch Fair Fares, eligibility has expanded incrementally from 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to 120% in 2023, 145% in 2024, and 150% in 2025. Though this progress is notable, and hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are paying less for transit today than in 2019, New York City’s eligibility threshold remains among the lowest in the country.

In the post-COVID era, fare evasion and affordability have become fixtures of New York City’s zeitgeist. The Community Service Society of New York’s (CSS’s) 2024 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security found that transit hardship affects about 1 in 5 low-income New Yorkers, even with transportation costs in New York City among the most affordable in the country, thanks to public transit. The Fair Fares program offers an unparalleled opportunity to expand access to opportunity, employment, education, and more, but far too few people can qualify under the currently too-low eligibility threshold, including most minimum-wage workers. Fair Fares can complement Mayor-elect Mamdani’s push for free bus service by providing access to the city’s vast subway network and more for New Yorkers who need it.  

CSS, PCAC, and Riders Alliance are proud to recommend a five-point plan that will overhaul Fair Fares, improving transportation equity—and lives—while simultaneously addressing our city’s affordability crisis, addressing persistent inequity, and reducing fare evasion:

1. Expand Fair Fares to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)

2. Fully free for households under 150%

3. Expand Fair Fares to MTA Express Buses and CityTickets

4. Implement automatic enrollment

5. Close program loopholes for senior, disabled riders

Since Fair Fares is an existing program administered by the NYC Human Resources Administration with considerable infrastructure at both that agency and the MTA, most of the program expansions discussed can be delivered to NYC residents within months of the new mayoral administration taking office. As such, expanding Fair Fares can be a first step toward delivering greater transportation affordability for New York City residents.

EXPANDED RATIONALE:

1. Expand Fair Fares to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level

The Regional Plan Association found that Fair Fares’ current eligibility threshold is lower than all but five similar programs across the United States, despite its highest-in-the-nation transit ridership and infamous high cost of living. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who made transit affordability a cornerstone of his agenda, can partner with the New York City Council to address this on day one by raising eligibility to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.

An increase to 300% would cover an individual earning $46,950 and a four-person household earning $96,450 of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). This would allow an estimated 2.1 million New Yorkers to take part in the program at 300%, including workers making at or close to minimum wage, who are incredibly likely to be transit dependent.

With $96 million already baselined in the New York City Budget, expanding Fair Fares to an additional one million New Yorkers will cost between $125 and $155 million, assuming an enrollment rate of between 40% and 50%. This would be an increase from the current enrollment rate of approximately one-third of eligible New Yorkers.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Expanding Fair Fares to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level would make over 2 million, or 30% of New Yorkers, eligible for half-price or fully free transit fares.
• Over 1 million, or 13% more New Yorkers, would be eligible for half-price transit with the existing Fair Fares program expanded from the current threshold of 150% to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.
• 24 of 51 Council districts would see over 50,000 residents eligible for Fair Fares.
• 37 of 51 Council districts would see over 25% of their residents eligible for Fair Fares.
• Council districts in the South and Central Bronx would have the highest proportion of residents eligible for Fair Fares.
• 19 Council districts would see an additional 15,000 residents newly eligible for Fair Fares, with the eligibility threshold raised to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Search the table below to find the Councilmembers with the highest proportion of eligible residents at 300% FPL:

In the first ten months of 2025, 65.84% of Fair Fares taps and swipes are on the Subway, and 34.16% are on the bus (excluding Staten Island Railway and Access-A-Ride taps and swipes). Fair Fares riders use the bus at a higher rate than full-fare riders– showing the demand for more affordable bus fares– but the importance of expanding affordability on the subway cannot be overstated. In 2024, daily paid ridership averaged 3.7 million on the subway and 1.3 million on the bus. Particularly at a time when the MTA is focused on reducing fare evasion through a range of methods, including piloting new fare arrays on the subway, ensuring low-income New Yorkers continue to have access to affordable subway service is essential.

TAKEAWAYS:

• The subway stations with the highest proportion of Fair Fares ridership overlap closely with the Council districts that would see the largest percentage of residents eligible for the program at 300% of the FPL.
• Fair Fares riders are also traveling to stations in Midtown, the Financial District, Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing, and other key business and economic hubs. Many of these neighborhoods are well-connected to the subway.
• 3.5% of all taps or swipes into the subway were with Fair Fares in the first ten months of 2025.

2. Fully free for individuals under 150% of the Federal Poverty Level

There are over 1 million riders who live at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, $23,475 for an individual or $48,225 for a household of four. These riders currently qualify for half-priced fares. Free buses and subways for these riders is a crucial anti-poverty measure that will allow greater access to employment opportunities and healthcare while alleviating pressure on fixed costs like food and housing.

It would cost approximately $150 to $170 million to deepen affordability for the current million riders who qualify for Fair Fares at or below 150% of the FPL. These numbers also include an increase in enrollment from the current rate up to between 40% and 50% of eligible New Yorkers. This would save 1.3 million New Yorkers up to $910 per year. Fully free Fair Fares would function similarly to the student OMNY card, where transit rides are fully subsidized, but riders tap to access the transit system.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Over 1 million or 16% of New Yorkers aged 18-64 currently qualify for Fair Fares at 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.
• Council districts in the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and Central and Northern Brooklyn have the largest number of people who currently qualify for Fair Fares and would benefit most from fully free Fair Fares at 150% of the FPL.
• Council districts in Southern and Central Brooklyn, Upper Manhattan, and the Bronx have the highest density of people who would benefit from fully free Fair Fares at 150% of the FPL.

3. Expand Fair Fares with half-priced fares on MTA Express Buses and CityTickets

Providing discounted fares on one transit service but not another creates a two-tiered system: one for riders who can afford the transit option that works best for them and one for those who cannot. Expanding Fair Fares via half-priced fares on the MTA’s express bus network, and on the LIRR and Metro-North railroads through a half-priced CityTicket—particularly with the addition of a weekly CityTicket that includes transfers to subways and buses—would allow riders in subway deserts to access whatever mode of transit is most convenient for them and dramatically improve their commutes. The CityTicket’s expansion in recent years was a transformative step toward ensuring that city riders can afford faster trips on the MTA’s commuter railroads, and the program has shown increased ridership at stations across New York City.

But today, the lack of Fair Fares on MTA Express Buses and the railroads costs low-income riders hours and days with family and friends that are instead spent on the slowest buses in America. PCAC analysis found a trip between the Woodlawn and Grand Central takes just 25 minutes on Metro-North but over an hour on New York City Transit. A trip between Rosedale and Atlantic Terminal takes over an hour and a half on New York City Transit but just 36 minutes on the Long Island Rail Road.

Similarly, the MTA must create a single fare zone for weekly and city intracity (within NYC) rail passes as they’ve done with the CityTicket. Uniting the six city zones across the five boroughs into one will link the farthest reaches of New York City with fast, reliable, and affordable regional rail. At $7.25 per peak CityTicket, the siloed model of today makes a round-trip peak trip between Woodhaven and Woodlawn cost $29 round-trip. Though intracity trip distances are myopic relative to suburban commuters, high ticket costs put them out of reach of most New York City residents.

Riders enrolled in Fair Fares deserve the exact same access to the MTA as any other New York City resident.

4. Implement automatic enrollment

As the name implies, the implementation of automatic enrollment in Fair Fares would mean that eligible riders would simply be mailed or given their discounted or free OMNY card if they are found to be eligible. Arbitrary hurdles to enrollment and renewal depress Fair Fares’ uptake to just a third of eligible households. These barriers include duplicative application materials, a lack of cross-enrollment with other programs like SNAP, and annual renewal. Automatic enrollment could be enacted through amending the contract language between the City of New York and the MTA.

The City of Philadelphia partnered with SEPTA to automatically enroll low-income riders in a fare-free pilot. The result? The program saw 63% participation in just two years of operation, the highest in the nation among income-based fare discount programs, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute.

5. Close program loopholes for senior, disabled riders

Today, Access-a-Ride riders age out of Fair Fares at the age of 65, at which point they must pay the full fare. This quirk results in a rare and inequitable situation where disabled riders actually start to pay more for Access-a-Ride once they become a senior, while most riders have the opposite experience. It’s crucial that seniors, particularly those with disabilities, be able to afford to move around New York City in an accessible and affordable way.

While the majority of Senior riders transition from the Fair Fares half-price fare to the MTA’s Reduced Fare program upon turning 65, this program does not apply to Access-a-Ride, even though Fair Fares does. Riders who qualify for Fair Fares on Access-a-Ride should have their benefits extended past the age of 64 so that they don’t pay double starting on their 65th birthday.

A MANDATE FOR FAST BUSES:

In addition to the Fair Fares program, City Hall’s other main responsibility to transit riders is ensuring their bus can move quickly, safely, and reliably on the city’s streets. As recent research from PCAC, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, and People-Oriented Cities has highlighted, additional investment in bus infrastructure is needed to improve upon buses’ woeful average speed of just under 8 miles per hour. First and foremost, the city should live up to its commitments – and the legal mandate – in the streets master plan of building 150 miles of camera- or physically protected bus lanes. To date, it has only installed 23 miles.

CONCLUSION:

Fair Fares is a clear complement to Mayor-Elect Mamdani’s mandate for affordability. Acting at the city level, Mayor Mamdani can expand free and discounted transit to millions more New Yorkers across all modes within his first year in office. As we look to make transit more affordable, equitable, and accessible, it’s crucial that the City of New York give riders the agency to decide which mode works best for them, irrespective of income.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Report Authors: 

Kara Gurl, Planning and Advocacy Manager, PCAC

Brian Fritsch, Associate Director, PCAC

Jack Connors, Research and Communications Associate, PCAC

Research and Data Contributors:

Benjy Ross, Intern, PCAC

Debipriya Chatterjee, former Senior Economist, CSS

Contributors:

Lisa Daglian, Executive Director, PCAC

Jeffrey N. Maclin, Vice President for Governmental and Public Relations, CSS

Rachel Swaner, Vice President of Policy, Research, & Advocacy, CSS

Danny Pearlstein, Policy and Communications Director, Riders Alliance

Caitlin Pearce, Deputy Director, Riders Alliance

Danna Dennis, Senior Organizer, Riders Alliance

Salma Allam, Community Organizer, Riders Alliance

The post Universal Affordable Transit for New York appeared first on PCAC.

This report was written by Megan Ahearn and Natasha Elder with the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) Straphangers Campaign, and Brian Fritsch, Kara Gurl, and Henry Mei of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC). Data analysis was conducted by PCAC. Images were created by Megan Ahearn. Maps were created by Henry Mei with NYC Open Data and mass transit data layers compiled by Anastasia Clark, Frank Donnelly & Zhi Keng He using GTFS data from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Since 1979, the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign has organized the riding public – college students, in particular – to speak up for affordable fares, more attractive service, and the continued rebuilding and expansion of public transit. 

Created by the New York State Legislature in 1981, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC) serves as the official voice of riders of the subway, bus, Staten Island Railway, Long Island Rail Road, and Metro-North Railroad, advocating for affordability, transparency, accessibility, and equity across the MTA system.

Executive Summary

With renewed focus on buses and speeding the trips for the millions of riders who rely on them, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) Straphangers Campaign and Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC) announced reinvigorated Pokey and Schleppie Awards for poor bus service, and creation of a new category – the Mazel – for most improved.

This year marks the 18th in the series of the dubious recognition awards, which were last issued in 2022. The latest awards measured bus speeds and reliability as of May 2025 (prior to implementation of the Queens Bus Network Redesign.) The advent of congestion relief has helped improve even the worst line, and even more progress will be possible following implementation of the Bus Network Redesign projects. A clear take-away is the need for complementary efforts such as bus lanes, enforcement, and bus priority projects.

The 2025 Pokey and Schleppie Award “Winners”

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT) local bus routes which have 5,000 daily riders or more were eligible for the Pokey and Schleppie Awards (see Methodology, Appendix D).

• The “winner” of the 2025 Pokey Award is the M42, clocking in at 5.25 Miles Per Hour (MPH). It had the slowest speed out of the high-ridership bus routes reviewed by PCAC and the Straphangers Campaign. Positively, the M42 runs faster than the most recent Pokey winner in 2022, we believe that’s in large part because of the launch of congestion relief.
• The “winner” of the 2025 Schleppie Award is the Q8, with riders waiting on average 3.62 minutes longer than the scheduled wait time between buses. It had the least reliability out of the high-ridership bus routes reviewed by PCAC and the Straphangers Campaign. With the Queens Bus Network Redesign now fully implemented, here’s hoping the schleppie Q8 sees some pep in its step next year.

Announcing: The 2025 Mazel Award!

While some routes continue to crawl, others have shown meaningful improvements over the past year. The inaugural “Mazel Award” is awarded to both the standard and express bus routes that have improved their average speeds the most between May 2024 and May 2025 (see Methodology, Appendix D).

• The winner of the inaugural Mazel Award for standard buses is the M79+, which improved from 6.63 to 7.25 Miles Per Hour (MPH).
• The winner of the inaugural Mazel Award for express buses is the SIM32 (Travis Staten Island – Lower Manhattan), which jumped by more than 2 MPH to reach an average of 17.14 MPH.

Recommendations

Well-targeted reforms with consistent on-the-ground enforcement can realize riders’ dreams: Fast, reliable bus service.

• New York City must implement the mandated Streets Plan and install more busways and priority bus lanes, such as those implemented on 14th Street in Manhattan, to cut delays and boost reliability.
• Properly enforce busways and priority bus lanes.
• Build on improvements in traffic congestion by investing in signal priority technology and active headway management.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

In New York City, mass transit defines where you live, where you play, and where you go to school. It is the “great equalizer” of opportunity and why accessible, affordable, and safe transportation is so important. 

Many New Yorkers depend heavily on bus service for daily travel and can attest to the fact that the city’s buses are notoriously slow. Yet, as this report finds, overall, bus speeds showed meaningful improvement compared to the last report in 2022.

Well-targeted reforms with consistent on-the-ground enforcement can realize riders’ dreams: Faster, more reliable bus service. Busways and priority lanes, such as those implemented on 14th Street in Manhattan, have proven effective in cutting delays and boosting reliability when properly enforced. Where traffic has been eased through congestion relief in Manhattan, riders are beginning to experience quicker, more consistent bus trips. The challenge ahead is ensuring that these benefits extend citywide, particularly to routes outside Manhattan.

The MTA is currently undergoing a series of borough Bus Network Redesigns that are making stop-level and route-based upgrades to each borough’s bus network. Up to this point, the Bronx Bus Network Redesign has been in effect since 2022, and the Queens Bus Network Redesign finished implementation in August of 2025.

The lesson is clear: pairing congestion pricing with robust bus priority measures can transform the rider experience, while relying on either one in isolation leaves riders only marginally better off. Expanding proven strategies — such as dedicated busways, signal priority, and active headway management — can turn today’s incremental improvements into a system-wide shift toward fast, dependable bus service. The mandated Streets Plan can support these efforts, and New York’s next Mayor should make its implementation a priority to improve service for bus riders across the five boroughs.

The post The Pokey, Schleppie, and Mazel Awards for NYC Bus Service appeared first on PCAC.

Earlier this summer, PCAC launched a survey to hear from riders about how the MTA’s transition to OMNY is going so far, knowing that the agency plans to retire the MetroCard by the end of the year. It has since become apparent that the 4% biennial fare increase will also occur then, to reduce confusion among riders. The OMNY rollout has been a joint venture of the MTA and its contractor, Cubic, since 2019, and full transition from the MetroCard to OMNY is planned for the end of 2025.

We asked about riders’ tapping habits, experiences they’ve had and issues they’ve encountered, and new features they hope to see in the future. The survey was conducted between June 2nd and July 7th, 2025; a total of 392 responses were recorded.

Top survey findings:

1. Respondents who use OMNY were generally positive about the transition, giving it a rating of 3.43 out of 5 (with 54% giving it a rating of four or five), while citing the convenience of being able to pay through a variety of methods. This included many senior fare or reduced fare riders who recently adopted OMNY.
2. Many respondents expressed that they miss seeing the immediacy of their transactions, including their remaining balance or expiration date, along with the peace of mind of knowing a free transfer has been honored, or if they hit the 7-day fare cap when tapping, which they are accustomed to from their MetroCard experience. 
3. Nearly 75% of riders recently encountered an issue with OMNY, including 42% who encountered issues with OMNY readers not accepting their tap, 34% with late charges, and 30% who claimed to have encountered what they perceived to be “extra charges.” 26% of respondents did not experience any issues.
4. Of those who submitted customer service complaints or tickets, a clear majority had not had their issue resolved. Riders lamented the lack of information available and an unhelpful chat function on the OMNY website, as well as long wait times when attempting to speak to a customer service representative. 
5. The vast majority of riders want to see new features and integrations with OMNY, including free transfers to the LIRR and Metro-North, integrations with other transportation providers like NYC Ferry and Citi Bike and more fare options with fare capping, or a 30-day unlimited. 

The OMNY Experience

Survey respondents most commonly tapped with OMNY on New York City Transit subways and buses, followed by the JFK AirTrain and Roosevelt Island Tram.

Of respondents, 47% used a physical OMNY card at least some of the time. 58% used a digital wallet/phone. 43% of respondents reported alternating between multiple modes of tapping— for example, occasionally using both an OMNY card and a physical credit card— which does not help to reach the weekly fare cap, but which may not have been apparent to the users.

Of respondents who indicated that they use a physical OMNY card at least some of the time, 51% purchased their OMNY card at a machine in a subway station. 26% used a physical OMNY card given to them by the MTA for a reduced fare or Fair Fares card.

Over half of respondents reported hitting the weekly fare cap less than once per month. 14% of respondents hit the fare cap every week.

OMNY Issues

• Only 26% of respondents shared that they had not encountered any issues with OMNY.  
• 42% of respondents encountered issues with OMNY readers not accepting their tap. 
• 34% encountered charges appearing hours or days after tapping. 
• 30% claimed to have encountered what they perceived to be “extra charges.”  
• 14% said they had been charged over $34 within one week without the fare cap automatically applying.  

Across the board, respondents using Apple Pay or another digital wallet experienced higher than average rates of all reported issues. Meanwhile, physical OMNY card users reported lower than average rates of issues, and the highest rate of an issue-free OMNY experience.

On average, respondents ranked their overall experience using OMNY a 3.43 out of 5.

54% of respondents ranked their OMNY experience a 4 or 5 out of 5.

OMNY Customer Service

22% of respondents submitted a formal complaint or reached out to MTA customer service about an OMNY issue.

On average, respondents who interacted with OMNY customer service ranked their experience a 2.21 out of 5.

Features and Integrations

• 76% of respondents want to see free transfers to other transportation modes 
• 64% of respondents want to see a 30-day unlimited fare cap 
• 52% of respondents want to see a single-day unlimited fare cap 

Respondents most wanted to see the following transportation services integrated with OMNY:

• LIRR: 58%
• NYC Ferry: 58%
• Metro-North: 55%
• PATH: 55%
• NJ Transit: 47%

Our Recommendations

Given the feedback from riders we received, PCAC recommends the following actions to improve OMNY and the rider experience before the MetroCard is retired and new fares are unveiled: 

• Update the OMNY interface so riders can immediately see their remaining balance, expiration date, free transfers, and whether they’ve met or are close to meeting the 7-day 12-ride fare cap. Riders need to see this information directly on the screen to better trust the system.   
• Implement fare incentives focused on low-income riders and the heaviest users of the system at the same time as the fare increase, to help make the system more equitable and affordable, including: 
  • A weekly CityTicket with free transfers to subways and buses
  • 30-day unlimited or fare cap 
  • A more robust Fair Fares program expanded to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level and expanded to the LIRR and Metro-North in the city  
• Invest in the OMNY website and customer service, so riders can clearly see their ride history and trips as they did in the past. Clean up the misinformation given by the OMNY Chatbot and ensure wait times for speaking with a representative are reasonable.  
• Launch a major public information campaign to:
  • build trust and clear up common misconceptions about OMNY, including personal data and security;
  • ensure that everyone knows OMNY can still be used without a bank account;
  • explain the concept of fare capping; and
  • tell riders why the MTA is switching to OMNY—it’s not a conspiracy to track riders, it’s an opportunity to improve the way they pay for transit.  
• Include OMNY website features in the MTA app to streamline the user experience in the future. 
• Work internally and with external partners to better integrate OMNY with the LIRR and Metro-North, as well as NYC Ferry, PATH, Citi Bike, and other regional services to offer fare incentives and better connections. 
• Incorporate MTA branding on the OMNY cards and machines. OMNY doesn’t currently look or feel like an MTA product but should be an iconic NYC symbol like the subway token and MetroCard before it. 

PCAC first undertook this study in response to a flurry of rider complaints and experienced many of the same issues. To their credit, the MTA has taken Cubic to task to expeditiously address the most oft-cited concerns and we look forward to the opportunity to now use these experiences and survey results to help inform fare policy as the MTA considers fare changes in the coming months.

The post OMNY Survey Results Are In! appeared first on PCAC.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a concept unfamiliar to most New Yorkers used to riding the nation’s slowest buses. Yet it is a tool that New York City can use to bring key, high demand corridors up to the standard that dozens of other cities have already reached — or, better put, the standard that bus riders around the five boroughs deserve. BRT differs from a standard bus network by incorporating: protected bus lanes; priority at intersections; off-board fare payment; accessible level boarding; and other key elements on stretches 1.9 miles and longer, to achieve a true, uninterrupted rapid transit experience for bus riders. Some of these elements can now be found individually in Select Bus Service (SBS), but not to the same extent or standards as BRT.

Despite being the largest and highest ridership system in the country, New York City’s buses are also some of the slowest, plagued by record traffic, inadequate on-street infrastructure, and outdated transit policies. In many cases, they are slower than walking; buses run by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), excluding express buses, ran at an average speed of 7.8 mph in 2024, while SBS routes averaged 9.2 mph. Although Congestion Pricing has improved bus speeds in the Congestion Relief Zone, overall, the benefits for bus riders are not yet far reaching enough in the rest of the city.

Both the MTA and New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) have implemented desperately needed initiatives to provide better service to bus riders. These programs have individually and collectively helped increase bus speeds and reduce repeat offenders, but none of these initiatives have yielded true BRT:

• Select Bus Service incorporates farther stop spacing, all-door boarding, and generally uses longer three-door articulated buses. SBS routes exist within the larger bus network and often have local counterparts making more frequent stops.
• Borough Bus Network Redesigns are comprehensive reviews and as-needed overhauls of MTA bus routes, on a borough-by-borough basis, to better reflect the needs of today’s bus riders. As of this writing, only the Bronx redesign is complete, with Queens Phase 1 in effect and Phase 2 following later this summer, and Brooklyn about to undertake next steps.
• Bus Priority Projects are redesigns of city streets with the goal of improving bus service using a toolkit developed by NYC DOT, including bus lanes and busways. Most are lanes along the curb or offset by parking, doing little to improve the accessibility of bus stops and facing constant blockages. Center-aligned bus lanes are standard in international BRT systems, yet exceedingly rare in New York. Augmenting traditional traffic agents, the Automated Camera Enforcement (ACE) program targets vehicles blocking bus stops and improperly using bus lanes.

However, successful case studies from around the world show that there is a path to addressing the shortcomings of New York City’s busiest buses. Policymakers in cities like Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Cleveland, Curitiba, Guangzhou, and Mexico City have all designed BRT differently in ways that consider their riders, larger public transit network and urban environment. It is time for all of the parties responsible for ensuring that New Yorkers have quality bus service to get on board with the single goal of improving the lives of millions who rely on buses in the five boroughs — which are served by an extensive, yet Manhattan-centric subway system, and showing high demand for rapid transit within and between the other four boroughs.

To implement BRT that is up-to-par with international standards, New Yorkers need a system that is fast, frequent, reliable, accessible, and easy to use. Although this report identifies Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn and Northern Boulevard, Queens as two key places for possible implementation, the following suite of recommendations should be used together to create a cohesive network of BRT for underserved neighborhoods across the boroughs:

• Install protected bus lanes aligned to the center of streets, avoiding the chronic issues that block New York’s existing curbside and offset bus lanes.
• Continue implementing technology innovations to speed up buses, such as transit signal priority, and other intersection safety tools such as left turn bans and queue jumps when necessary.
• Build accessible BRT stations with level boarding, full shelters, clear signage, lighting, seating and countdown clocks. Strengthen coordination between MTA & NYC DOT to deliver higher-quality and more effective bus priority projects in compliance with the legal mandates of the NYC Streets Plan.
• Overhaul signage and wayfinding by adopting a recognizable and unified design language for wayfinding at BRT stations. Integrate BRT into the subway map to improve wayfinding for riders.
• Pilot a new bus fleet with doors on both sides to enable construction of bi-directional island platforms, a standard design on most international BRT systems.
• Reform boarding and fare payment by enabling all-door boarding and piloting fare gates at BRT stations to speed up service and reduce fare evasion.
• Launch the next generation Select Bus Service as BRT by upgrading existing infrastructure, extending existing SBS to better connect Manhattan’s Congestion Relief Zone with the boroughs outside of Manhattan, and launching new interborough SBS by using this report’s suite of recommendations in tandem with one another.

BRT in New York City is more than just possible — it’s a necessary goal for NYC’s bus mayor. For a more sustainable and transit-driven future, there must be more commitment to better coordinated efforts between the MTA and NYC DOT, whose most recent update to the Streets Plan states the agency’s desire to “work with the MTA to plan — and fund — the next generation of major transit capital investments, including subway, rail, and bus rapid transit.” Through this report’s recommendations and proper investment, PCAC is confident that the next generation of Select Bus Service can achieve the bus rapid transit standards that New Yorkers from all five boroughs deserve.

BRT Design Concepts

What could the next generation Select Bus Service feasibly look like? This report focuses on design concepts and the ways they could address current issues on two key corridors: Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn and Northern Boulevard, Queens. Both are long, uninterrupted main roadways which span practically the entirety of their respective boroughs and are currently without SBS. Though these are just two instances where BRT could be immensely beneficial, they are far from the only possible use cases. PCAC encourages New Yorkers to think of these general concepts as an adaptable toolkit; exact implementation should aways be responsive to the needs of riders and surrounding neighborhoods.

Flatbush Avenue (at Grand Army Plaza South)

This design concept focuses specifically on what BRT could look like at Flatbush Avenue on the southern end of Grand Army Plaza. Flatbush Avenue varies greatly in roadway width from section to section, meaning the design of bus lanes and stations would likely vary as well. The existing B41 limited would be upgraded to SBS and could potentially be extended on both ends to Canal Street (Manhattan) and Rockaway Park (Queens), reducing the need for subway transfers for many riders. In doing so, the B41 SBS would enable a one-seat ride across three boroughs while the B41 local can take advantage of the same BRT infrastructure for faster inter-neighborhood connectivity along its existing route. Feasibility of inter-borough SBS via Flatbush Avenue hinges on whether the on-street infrastructure is designed/enforced effectively and on the continuation of Congestion Pricing, which has significantly reduced traffic in Lower Manhattan and across the Manhattan Bridge.

Northern Boulevard (at 82nd/83rd Street)

Unlike Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, which varies widely in roadway width from section to section, Northern Boulevard is relatively consistent in road layout and thus a streamlined BRT design can be more feasibly implemented. Though these pages focus on the block between 82nd and 83rd Streets in Jackson Heights, the characteristics of this specific location are applicable to most of Northern Boulevard. This design concept imagines an articulated bus fleet with doors on both sides of the vehicle, unlocking the ability to construct a single island platform with bus lanes on either side. Riders of the Q63 and Q66 would use the same stations built in the middle of the roadway, currently occupied by a yellow-striped median and left turn lanes at a few intersections. Fare gates and platform screen doors, unprecedented among BRT systems in the United States, are ideal solutions for speedy off-board OMNY payment and fare evasion mitigation. The upcoming Q63 route could be further upgraded to Select Bus Service and extended across the Queensboro Bridge into Manhattan, greatly reducing the need for bus riders to transfer to the subway in Queens.

The post BRT for the Boroughs: How the MTA & City Hall can transform your bus ride appeared first on PCAC.

Introduction

Even as funding for the MTA’s 2025-29 Capital Plan becomes available, the New York City region is short half a million homes to meet demand. The MTA can finally renovate and upgrade critical systems to keep them from falling into disrepair from decades of disinvestment, yet housing costs are skyrocketing and putting shorter commutes out of reach for many MTA riders. These are not two separate phenomena. Denser, transit-oriented housing creates more demand for transit, which provides resources to the MTA’s hard-fought efforts in building better service.

Enacting policies that restore the virtuous cycle of housing growth and transit improvement is the only way for New York City to build an affordable and livable future – particularly as the region is expected to lose more than 80,000 units of housing due to climate change by 2040

New York City needs to build more housing immediately, but residents need adequate mobility. The density necessary to realistically combat the housing crisis requires public transit to function. With nearly all open space exhausted and water increasingly encroaching into the built environment, there are few places left for New York City to grow.

To fight the housing crisis, the Mayor organized a Charter Revision Commission that is exploring changes to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure – or ‘ULURP’ – process. ULURP governs land use changes that are needed to change New York’s zoning – including to add to New York City’s housing stock – from rezoning entire neighborhoods to a property owner looking to convert their single-family home into a duplex. In late April, the Charter Revision Commission released a preliminary report outlining the objectives and framework for the recommendations that may be put on the ballot in November’s general election. The report identified myriad issues with ULURP that contribute to New York City’s housing crisis but included little discussion about how to utilize transit to meet the city’s dire housing needs.

This whitepaper serves as a transit addendum to the Charter Revision Commission’s preliminary report to offer more tools to make housing more affordable and New York more livable. For the commission to solve the structural problems facing New York City’s housing crisis, members should consider the following transit-oriented recommendations:

1. Create a transit-oriented comprehensive citywide plan
2. Expand Zoning for Accessibility
3. Eliminate mandatory parking minimums citywide

The Transit-Housing Connection

Housing in New York City is extremely expensive. Median rents in New York City reached a  record high of $3,973 as of May 2025 with Manhattan’s median rent climbing to over $5,368 in February 2025. With job growth continually outpacing housing production, housing costs show no indication of slowing down. Between 2011 and 2023, New York City added 895,000 jobs but just 353,000 housing units.

From the inception of the subway in 1904 until the mid-20^th century, the idea of building housing around transit in New York City was a standard, if not obvious, practice. The zoning resolution in 1961 brought New York City’s zoned capacity from 55 to 12 million people by suburbanizing the city’s residential zoning. By 2016, onerous restrictions on height, floor area ratio, and commercial space made 40% of the buildings in Manhattan, the most transit-rich island in the world, illegal to build. Today, New Yorkers want to live within convenient commute times of their jobs, grocery stores, doctors, and schools, and developers want to build housing in high-demand, transit-accessible areas. Unfortunately, this is illegal in many parts of the city where our zoning is closer to that of Houston, Texas, than Houston Street.

Wealthier areas fail to provide adequate housing stock, so communities of color have suffered disproportionally. Though commute times have risen for all MTA riders, Black riders spend 25% more time going to and from work than their white counterparts. While neighborhoods remain frozen in amber by restrictive zoning, their residents are not: nearly one-in-ten – or 200,000 – Black New Yorkers left the city in the last two decades.

Housing that isn’t well connected to mass transit often encourages private automobile ownership, which is four times more expensive than riding the MTA. Auto infrastructure consumes already limited space; highways displace residents (a quarter of a million and counting), worsening air quality, and furthering the climate crisis in the process. New York City, already one of the most congested cities on Earth, simply lacks the land to build low-density, auto-centric housing at the scale needed to address the housing crisis. The density required to address the affordability, climate, and housing crises requires affordable, equitable, and accessible public transit to function.

Beyond the recommendations below, some opportunities will be created, such as the retrofitting of a freight rail line between Brooklyn and Queens for passenger service to create the Interborough Express. The light-rail line will include 19 stops and connect 17 subway lines, over 50 bus routes and the Long Island Rail Road. It also creates the potential for 70,000 to 100,000 new homes to be built within a half mile of stops, depending on land-use changes by the city.

Recommendations

With the Charter Revision Commission underway, these recommendations can help New York build a future where housing and transit are both affordable and abundant.

1. Create a Transit-Oriented Comprehensive Citywide Plan

Creating a comprehensive plan that addresses our dire need for more housing while considering needed improvements to infrastructure in a holistic and strategic way is critical to solving our housing crisis and cementing a stable future for mass transit riders and infrastructure.

New York City currently has no citywide planning process to address New Yorkers’ concerns, problems, and long-term interests. Instead, these needs are ‘managed’ piecemeal as the city sporadically unlocks new housing development through individual spot rezonings that vary greatly based on mayoral administration. ULURP today provides the same level of scrutiny both for massive rezonings and individual adjustments, such as converting a single-family lot to accommodate a duplex. A comprehensive plan could provide for density increases benchmarked by infrastructure development that includes improved transit and explores potential new routes and empowers homeowners to make decisions about their property without going through the same public review process as a multi-billion-dollar developer. This would help coordinate city agencies and emphasize public projects that address core structural problems the city faces.

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso’s Office recently released a comprehensive plan for the borough, one of the only examples of comprehensive planning in New York City in recent decades. This plan charts a path to thoughtfully tackle major problems facing the borough, including housing, while acknowledging that housing, transit, health, and other issues fundamentally intersect. This should serve as a model for the rest of the city to follow. A citywide comprehensive plan mapping out a future-oriented vision to realistically fight the housing crisis and help balance overarching interests with community needs would help to cut red tape and reform our outdated zoning process.

Comprehensive planning unlocks the synergistic capabilities of our city and state government agencies and authorities, allowing for more cooperation and faster, stronger action. For example, the ridership projections for the Utica Avenue extension included in the MTA’s recent 20-Year Needs Assessment utilized current housing capacity, dampening the project’s likely return on investment. Ultimately, it was not included in the 2025-29 Capital Plan because planners are forced to assume housing production will remain stagnant without intervention. Had there been a comprehensive plan that detailed the growth expectations of the neighborhoods potentially served by the expansion, the project would likely have scored more highly.

While the agency has a rather limited portfolio of developable parcels of land within New York City, the MTA is working in partnership to create some transit-oriented developments near stations, like the Monitor Point development in Greenpoint (684 apartments), and transit-oriented developments in Harlem, off the terminus for the planned 2nd Ave subway extension (900 apartments).

Transit expansion projects currently in progress, like the Interborough Express, 2nd Avenue Subway Extension Phase II, Penn Station Access, and center-running bus lanes on Flatbush Ave would benefit enormously from a comprehensive plan encouraging the coordination between our transit and housing planning agencies in long-term planning. For example, a PCAC analysis showed that City of Yes would increase daily transit ridership by up to 97,000, bringing in $304 million annually over 15 years in subway and bus operating funds. Facilitating the cooperation between different government agencies in long-term planning would be a boon for this city’s infrastructure and policy decisions.

The decades-old existing ULURP process does not give leaders the tools to address our housing crisis. It’s time to build upon it with a comprehensive plan that allows for higher density, more affordability, and abundant housing near transit. Updating the ULURP process through curbing member deference, reforming community outreach, and rationalizing the environmental review process are necessary steps to ensure a comprehensive plan comes to fruition. This will support current and future transit infrastructure projects and transit riders.

2. Expand Zoning for Accessibility

The Zoning for Accessibility text amendment passed by the City Council in 2021 has encouraged denser development and created newly accessible subway stations at no cost to taxpayers. However, it can go further to fund more accessibility upgrades at more stations and stops, all while allowing more MTA riders to live near the transit they depend on.

Zoning for Accessibility has two core components: the first requires developers of projects within 50 feet of a station’s footprint to provide an easement to the MTA during the construction of new elevators or other accessibility projects. This applies to nearly every subway, LIRR, Metro-North, PATH stations, and some Staten Island Rail stations across the city.

The second component of Zoning for Accessibility applies only to developments within parts of Midtown, the Financial District, Downtown Brooklyn, and Long Island City – 79 stations total, just over 15% of all the subway and rail stations in New York City. Provided that a development falls within 1500 feet or 500 feet of a station, depending on the zoning of the neighborhood, they may receive a density bonus in exchange for constructing one or more elevators to enhance or create an accessible station. Developments outside this small zone are left out irrespective of potential benefits to the community.

Every neighborhood should be able to benefit from increased density and accessible transit. Not only should every subway and rail station in NYC be eligible for Zoning for Accessibility, but every development, with community approval or cooperation, should have the option to build denser if they want to support accessibility projects financially. PCAC recommends multiple amendments to the Zoning for Accessibility text that should be put to voters:

1. Expand the area of the Zoning for Accessibility text. All developments within a quarter-mile of a subway or rail station should be eligible for Zoning for Accessibility across the city, increased to a half mile for existing high-density neighborhoods. Residents within this area are more likely to use transit as their primary mode of transportation. Major neighborhood rezoning projects should also automatically qualify for new developments to be considered a “bonus” ZFA zone for the stations closest to the rezoning. For example, the Gowanus rezoning in Brooklyn has dozens of new buildings, and new residents will certainly use the nearby Union St. R and Carroll St. F/G trains that fall outside of the ZFA zone.
2. Create a “potluck” style of funding for accessibility and other station upgrade projects from nearby developments. Smaller “missing middle” developments within a certain distance from any transit station in need of an upgrade should be able to contribute a smaller amount to the project’s funding and, in return, receive a smaller yet proportional return in zoning incentives. This money would go into a locked-box fund that could only be spent to build that accessibility project. Construction should begin once the pot is full, either from multiple smaller developments or a single larger development. If the nearest station is already fully accessible, this system could be used for other station upgrade projects, including improving lighting, public art, wayfinding, and more.
3. Extend Zoning for Accessibility’s easement and transit bonus provisions to apply to bus stops. Currently, Zoning for Accessibility only applies to subway and rail stations, but the bus network also needs upgrades at hundreds of stops around the city. Developers within a quarter mile of a bus stop should have a mechanism through Zoning for Accessibility to fund bus stop improvements like benches, shelters, level boarding platforms, and lighting in exchange for a density boost within a quarter mile of the development.

These changes would mean that a greater number of developments could fund new accessibility and station improvement projects, increasing both housing density and station accessibility at the same time. Expanding Zoning for Accessibility is an amazing opportunity to support efforts in alleviating the housing crisis while quickly increasing accessibility and use of NYC’s transit system.

3. Eliminate mandatory parking minimums citywide

Mandatory parking minimums legally require new housing construction to include off-street parking, so new projects must use large percentages of their precious space to build storage for personal vehicles. In a transit-rich and land-constricted city like New York, desperately needed housing is often replaced with infrastructure that only encourages driving, pushing rents higher to offset the high cost of constructing underground or onsite parking.

City of Yes only eliminated parking minimums in the densest neighborhoods such as Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, reduced them in neighborhoods within the Outer Transit Zone, and did not affect neighborhoods beyond the greater transit zone. The City Council’s compromise on City of Yes to retain parking minimums in much of the city slashed an estimated 20,000 units of housing from the plan.

New York City should follow the lead of more auto-centric cities like Minneapolis and Austin and eliminate parking minimums citywide, even in neighborhoods not currently served by the subway. PCAC has previously recommended encouraging future transit use by eliminating parking minimums; doing so is a down payment on a more symbiotic relationship between housing and transit infrastructure.

Parking minimums reduce the amount of housing, increase its cost, and make transit options less likely to draw new riders. New York City, the most transit-rich city in the Western Hemisphere but with an acute housing shortage, needs to eliminate parking minimums to combat the housing crisis and support and expand the MTA system.

Conclusion

There’s a critical shortage of housing in our region. More than 60 years into New York City’s self-declared housing emergency, we remain more than half a million homes below current demand.

Good access to transit, more so than a home’s location, is the most important factor in the mobility of its inhabitants. New York City needs to utilize smart housing growth around transit to bolster our transit system. On the opposite side of that same coin, New York City needs effective mass transit to support the density needed to defeat the housing crisis.

New Yorkers deserve the opportunity to act decisively where their leaders have failed for decades and resolve our housing crisis. PCAC encourages members of the Charter Revision Commission to advance the recommendations laid out in this report as ballot measures in November’s general election.

The post Riding with Housing Affordability: A Transit-Oriented Addendum to the Charter Revision Commission Preliminary Report appeared first on PCAC.

Fair Fares is a crucial lifeline of affordability for over 360,000 New Yorkers currently enrolled in the program. First launched in 2019, Fair Fares offers half-fare subway, bus, and paratransit rides to low-income New Yorkers ages 18-64. The program began with an income limit of 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which was expanded to 120% of the FPL in 2023, and 145% of the FPL in 2024. While these expansions are welcome steps in the right direction, expansion to 200% of the FPL will ensure that all low-income New Yorkers – including those making minimum wage, which currently excludes single individuals from the program – can benefit from Fair Fares. Half-price transit fares mean access to opportunity, employment, education, and more, but far too few people can qualify at the currently too-low eligibility threshold. No other city program has the power to improve transportation equity – and lives –while simultaneously addressing our city’s affordability crisis. 

Expanding Fair Fares to 200% FPL will better serve the communities, particularly the working poor living paycheck-to-paycheck or making minimum wage, that need relief to make their commutes more affordable.

The program’s expansion to 200% from 145% would make more than 415,000 additional New Yorkers eligible, up from approximately 1.35 million who are eligible for Fare Fares today to over 1.75 million. Despite efforts to increase awareness and participation, only about 365,000 residents – or 27% of those eligible – are currently enrolled in the program – though research from the Community Service Society (CSS) shows that the true barrier to Fair Fares program success lies in its low eligibility threshold.  

Expanding Fair Fares to the LIRR and Metro-North within New York City would also help break down barriers to transit access for New Yorkers around the five boroughs. Currently, the MTA’s commuter railroads provide faster access to Manhattan and other parts of the city than long subway and bus trips from Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, but at $5 off-peak and $7 peak, these faster trips are unaffordable to many working-class riders. Expanding Fair Fares to the LIRR and Metro-North within New York City would ensure that more low-income New Yorkers can benefit from the commuter rail network that runs through their backyards, particularly in subway deserts. This change would be particularly impactful for areas of Southeast and Northeastern Queens, the Central and Western Bronx, and, eventually, the Eastern Bronx after the completion of four new Metro-North stations that will be constructed by 2027 as part of the Penn Station Access project.  

PCAC, in collaboration with New York City Council Speaker Adams, the CSS, and Riders Alliance, has advocated for the much-needed expansion of the Fair Fares program through research, op-eds, and campaigns to support the increase to 200% of FPL since prior to the inception of the program. This city-funded program would require an additional $36-$40 million a year in funding, per CSS analysis. In the FY2025 budget year, Fair Fares received $95 million in annual baselined funding from the city, with $25 million of that funding currently unused due to under-enrollment. The FY2026 City Council budget proposal suggests adding an additional $60.8 million of baselined annual funding to bring the total funding up to $157.1 million and fund the eligibility expansion to 200% of the FPL. 

As noted in the 2023 report of the Blue-Ribbon Panel on Fare Evasion, the program is also a critical tool to make subways and buses more equitable while reducing fare evasion. Key to improving its reach, the panel recommended raising the income eligibility threshold to 200% of FPL, as well as giving residents who receive fare evasion summonses the opportunity to enroll in the program. That recommendation has been implemented. 

PCAC analyzed how an expansion of Fair Fares to 200% from 145% FPL would benefit New Yorkers around the city and which boroughs and districts would see the greatest increase in eligible residents. PCAC used American Community Survey data from 2019-2023 broken down by census tract, City Council district, State Senate District, and State Assembly district to show where riders ages 18-64 are most impacted by the current too-low eligibility threshold. 

Key Findings of Expansion to 200% FPL from 145%:  

• Over 415,000 New Yorkers will become eligible for the program, including over 160,000 regular commuters. 
• 42 of 51 Council districts would see at least 1,500 more commuters newly eligible for Fair Fares. 
• Every Senate district outside of central Manhattan would see at least 2,500 commuters become newly eligible. 
• The majority of Upper Manhattan and Assembly districts outside of Manhattan would see at least 2,000 newly eligible commuters. 
• The Bronx will see the greatest per capita increase, as an additional 10.17% of the 18-64 population will become eligible for Fair Fares. Queens and Brooklyn are second and third at 8.46% and 8.25% respectively. 
• Brooklyn will see the greatest increase in total population over those now eligible for Fair Fares at nearly 134,000 people, followed by Queens at 123,000, The Bronx at 86,000, Manhattan at 54,000, and Staten Island at 20,000. 
• An expansion of the program would have the greatest impact on working-class neighborhoods, including Sunset Park, Brownsville, Flushing, Elmhurst/Jackson Heights, Morrisania, and Highbridge. 
• New York’s Fair Fares program has the most restrictive income requirements nationally, despite being the metro area with the highest cost of living and having the highest poverty rates of major cities with income-based fare discount programs. 

Key Findings of Expansion to the LIRR and Metro-North within New York City: 

• Expansion of the Fair Fares program to LIRR and Metro-North trains within New York City would provide access to a significant number of residents below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, especially in portions of The Bronx and Queens that lack subway access. 
• 35% of city LIRR and Metro-North stations are close to communities where over 60% of residents would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% FPL. 
• 70% of city LIRR and Metro-North stations are close to communities where over 40% of residents would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% FPL. 
• 90% of city LIRR and Metro-North stations are close to communities where over 20% of residents would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% FPL. 
• In the Council districts containing LIRR and Metro-North stations in NYC, 143,567 potential LIRR and 160,892 potential Metro-North riders – a collective 304,459 –would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% FPL.  

The Case for Expanding Fair Fares to 200% FPL 

Slide the map below to see how many more neighborhoods would benefit from a higher Fair Fares eligibility threshold!

Where Residents Will Benefit from Fair Fares Expansion  

While Fair Fares expansion will benefit New Yorkers around the entire city, certain neighborhoods will see particularly high rates of newly eligible residents. An expansion of the Fair Fares program from 145% to 200% of FPL will not be equally distributed across the city. Neighborhoods such as Sunset Park, Brownsville, Corona, Elmhurst/Jackson Heights, Morrisania, and Highbridge will see considerable increases in the number of residents that will be newly eligible for Fair Fares, while wealthier neighborhoods, including many neighborhoods in Manhattan, will see far more modest increases.  

Figure 4: Fair Fares Eligibility by Borough

With expansion to 200% FPL, The Bronx will see the greatest per capita increase, with an additional 10.17% of the total population newly eligible for Fair Fares, while Queens and Brooklyn are second and third at 8.46% and 8.25% respectively.  Brooklyn will see the greatest increase in total population over those now eligible for Fair Fares at nearly 134,000 people, followed by Queens at 123,000, The Bronx at 86,000, Manhattan at 54,000, and Staten Island at 20,000. 

*Eligible commuting population was calculated by estimating that 40% of the 18–64-year-old population in each district will need to regularly commute.

The maps above show the increase in commuting population eligible for Fair Fares by Council, Senate, and Assembly districts. Districts in The Bronx, Queens, and South and Central Brooklyn would see the most significant increase in newly eligible residents. 42 of 51 Council districts would see at least 1,500 more commuters newly eligible for Fair Fares; every Senate district outside of Central Manhattan would see at least 2,500 commuters newly eligible; and the majority of Upper Manhattan and Assembly districts outside Manhattan would see at least 2,000 newly eligible commuters.  

With Fair Fares expansion on the table at both the city and state level, it is a relevant issue for the dozens of local elected officials who represent New Yorkers. 

The Case for Expanding Fair Fares to the LIRR and Metro-North within NYC 

The map below shows how the expansion of the Fair Fares program to LIRR and Metro-North trains within New York City would expand access to a significant number of residents below 200% of the federal poverty level, especially in portions of The Bronx and Queens that do not have easy subway access. 90% of city LIRR and Metro-North stations are close to communities where over a fifth of residents would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% of FPL and many stations in Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx are close to communities where over 60% of residents would quality. Expanding Fair Fares to LIRR and Metro-North within New York City would be a boon for transportation equity in the city, helping to ensure that all New Yorkers can afford the fastest, most convenient transit option available to them regardless of income.  

The benefits of expanding Fair Fares to the LIRR and Metro-North within New York City and to 200% FPL are also clear when looking at the number of newly eligible commuters in each Council, Senate, and Assembly district. In the Council districts containing LIRR and Metro-North stations in NYC, a collective 143,567 potential LIRR and 160,892 potential Metro-North riders – for a total of 304,459 – would qualify for Fair Fares at 200% FPL. 

National Context: 

PCAC analyzed transit providers in the top ten most populous cities in the United States with income-based fare discount programs and found that New York City has both the highest poverty rate and the lowest income threshold at just 145% of the Federal Poverty Level. These results show that the industry standard is to offer a 50% discount to riders making up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.  

Figure 15: Poverty Rate and Low-Income Fare Discount Threshold, US Transit Agencies

After New York City, the next lowest threshold is Denver’s RTD, whose “LiVE” income-based fare discount program has a threshold at 185% of the Federal Poverty Level. The most generous income-based fare discount in terms of the discount offered also has the highest eligibility: Los Angeles County, which offers 20 free rides per month to Angelenos who make up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. 

Low-Income Fare Discounts Across US Transit Agencies

Figure 16: Low-Income Fare Discounts Across US Transit Agencies 

Of the ten cities analyzed, eight have commuter rail systems operating in the same jurisdiction. Of those, six provide income-based fare discounts on commuter rail and two, New York City and Washington D.C., do not. Unlike the MTA, which oversees New York City Transit, the LIRR, and Metro-North, Washington D.C.’s Metro does not manage the city’s commuter rail services, Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). MARC has one stop within DC city limits, Union Station, and VRE has two. The LIRR and Metro-North have over three dozen commuter rail stations within New York City. 

Conclusion: 

All around the five boroughs, the data shows that expanding Fair Fares eligibility to 200% FPL would be a game changer for New Yorkers. Increasing access to transit by expanding transit affordability and cutting the fare in half for so many low-income riders mean increasing access to opportunity. Further expanding the Fair Fares program to include the LIRR and Metro-North within New York City – at 200% of the Federal Poverty Level – will help ensure that more riders can afford faster trips on the commuter rail lines that run through Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Upper Manhattan. The City Council has already shown support for expanding the Fair Fares program to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. Now, riders are depending on Mayor Adams to come to the table and commit to expanding Fair Fares eligibility in this year’s city budget.  

Methodology: 

Our maps use the 2019-2023 Five-Year Average American Community Survey (ACS) data compiled for GIS by IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System. Maps regarding change in Fair Fares eligibility use 150% of the Federal Poverty Level as a proxy for 145% of the Federal Poverty Level, due to the methodology used by the ACS and NHGIS in table C17002: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months. Because of the high cost of living in New York City, the number of people making between 145% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level is considered negligible for this analysis and only adds to the total number of people who would be newly eligible for Fair Fares. 

Sources: 

Steven Manson, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Katherine Knowles, Tracy Kugler, Finn Roberts, and Steven Ruggles. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 18.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. 2024. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V18.0 

Debipriya Chatterjee and Emerita Torres. Community Service Society. When You Can’t Afford the Fare. New York, NY. 2024. https://smhttp-ssl-58547.nexcesscdn.net/nycss/images/uploads/pubs/031324_UHT2023_Transit_Brief_V6.pdf  

The post What Expanding Fair Fares Means to Riders appeared first on PCAC.

The Executive Budget lays out $3 billion each from the City and State — notably $1 billion less from each than was anticipated in the development of the plan. That $6 billion adds to the $14 billion expected from the federal government, which is currently in a precarious place due to volatility in the new Administration. Coupled with $13 billion to be bonded from the MTA and MTA Bridges and Tunnels revenue, this leaves an actual $35.4 billion funding gap in the $68.4 billion Capital Plan. Governor Hochul has committed to funding the Plan, but did not propose specific funding sources to fill this gap. 

Riders are counting on Governor Hochul and the Legislature to deliver steady, long-term funding sources that the MTA can depend on. Without a fully funded Capital Plan, projects can’t get started, shovels aren’t in the ground, and riders are left stranded.  

The good news? PCAC did some of the homework for Albany. We came up with over two dozen potential funding sources totaling over $1 trillion in long-term revenue that could be used to invest in the Capital Plan when bonded. All the proposed taxes, budget line items, and closed loopholes are bondable, recurring, sustainable funding options that could be dedicated and remitted directly to the MTA’s 2025-29 Capital Plan – and future plans. While the MTA’s Capital Plan funding gap is $35.4 billion, the actual amount of revenue needed from Albany is much smaller –  $2 or $3 billion could be allocated to the MTA as long as its funding source can be bonded to raise the entire $35.4 billion over time. 

PCAC evaluated two dozen funding proposals based on whether the option impacts wealthier or lower income people on a scale of “progressive” versus “regressive;” whether the proposal has positive or negative climate impacts; and whether the proposal has overall positive or negative equity implications. We encourage legislators, advocates, and Governor Hochul to use this chart as a tool for considering which funding mechanisms can benefit New Yorkers most, while also achieving the goal of funding the MTA’s 2025-29 Capital Plan. 

Our findings: 

• The 26 funding sources listed total $62.56 billion in recurring revenue sources that can be bonded by the MTA for a total of $1.043 trillion, or more than 21 times the required amount to fully fund the plan. For a funding stream to be bondable, it is necessary for it to be continuous and predictable, not a one-time infusion of cash. 

• 23 of the 26 options have positive equity evaluations due to either being a progressive revenue raiser or additional positive societal impacts 

• Two-thirds of the options have either direct (7 options) or indirect (11 options) climate benefits, which will help the state meet its ambitious climate goals 

• The funds suggested would come from a variety of geographies: including 12 exclusively on the city, 3 on the 12 county MTA region and 11 for all of New York State 

• Eleven sources would be levied on individuals, eight on businesses, while seven sources would apply to a combination of both individuals and businesses  

• 17 funding streams are progressive, three have nuanced effects depending on the structure of the revenue, while four are likely regressive 

• 20 of the sources represent funds that are less than 1% of the state’s overall budget 

Recommendations: 

• First and foremost, Albany must fully fund the MTA’s 2025-29 Capital Plan using long-term, dedicated, bondable funding sources.  

• Legislators and Governor Hochul should prioritize funding sources that could have positive equity and climate benefits in addition to funding the MTA transit system, which is already a downpayment on equity, sustainability, and resiliency around the region. 

• Funding streams should not disproportionately be raised from low-income New Yorkers or fall solely on the backs of businesses or individuals in New York City. The MTA is the backbone of our entire state’s economy, so the entire MTA region and state should invest their fair share into transit. 

Methodology:

PCAC compiled funding sources based on proposals that have been suggested by elected officials, advocacy groups including PCAC, and past MTA leadership. All funding sources are bondable and recurring—the chart uses the New York State Office of the Comptroller projection of 16.67% to estimate bondable revenue, and the percent of total state budget by source was estimated using the FY26 Executive Budget figure of $252 billion. The actual bonding rate may vary depending on characteristics of funding streams and the funding guarantees agreed upon. 

PCAC evaluated funding sources as “progressive” if they primarily are paid by wealthier New Yorkers or larger businesses, or tax a service or good that wealthier residents disproportionately use. We deemed funding sources “regressive” if they disproportionately come from everyday working New Yorkers, or would apply to all residents rather than just the wealthiest. 

PCAC designated funding sources as having a direct positive benefit for climate if they directly reduce emissions through discouraging driving, closing loopholes or tax incentives for fossil fuels, or other clear climate-focused policies. We designated a funding source as having an indirect benefit if the policy has the potential to positively affect climate through encouraging better business practices, increasing corporate taxes, or other policies that could ultimately lead to a more sustainable state.  

PCAC deemed funding sources to have a positive effect on equity if they directly apply to the wealthiest New Yorkers through corporate tax increases, real estate transfer fees, or other proposals that require large companies to pay their fair share, and money raised is used to invest in all New Yorkers through funding the Capital Plan. Options listed as negatively affecting equity fall on the backs of lower-income New Yorkers, including raising the Sales Tax. Some options are listed as “nuanced” if they could disproportionately affect everyday New Yorkers but have positive health benefits, such as a tax on alcohol or sugar-sweetened beverages. 

The post Take Your Pick Albany: Evaluating the Dozens of Options for Funding the MTA’s 2025-29 Capital Plan appeared first on PCAC.

^{Authored by Jack Connors, PCAC Research and Communications Associate}

With congestion pricing slated to begin in early 2025, the time is right to continue the conversation about affordability and ripe to introduce new discounts for transit riders, while incentivizing drivers to get out of their cars and onto trains and buses.

PCAC’s “Rider-First Fare Payment” report details ways that legislative leaders and the MTA can help create a more integrated, affordable, and efficient fare payment system around the region.

As the legislative session approaches, we’re calling for the following fare policy recommendations that support more equitable access to affordable transit for more New Yorkers, particularly those in subway deserts:

Introduce A.M. peak discounts for senior, disabled, and Medicare-eligible riders

Seniors, disabled, and Medicare-eligible riders cannot use their discounts in the A.M. peak period on the LIRR and Metro-North, anywhere in the system. This makes no sense – particularly given that they can use the discount in the P.M. peak period. This creates unnecessary hurdles for transit-dependent groups and obstacles to employment and opportunity.

^{Suggested Funding Source: MTA | Cost: $5-$10 million}

Close the ‘mid-kid’ gap by creating a Family Fare for the LIRR and Metro-North

While children between the ages of five and 11 can ride the LIRR and Metro-North for one dollar with a paying adult, no discount at all is offered for twelve- to seventeen-year-olds, making transit an expensive alternative to driving for families with older children. Offering reduced fares for ‘mid-kids’ traveling with an adult would make taking the train a more affordable option for families.

^{Suggested Funding Source: New York State | Cost: Dependent on exact discount}

Create a weekly CityTicket with transfers to New York City Transit

The CityTicket is a single-ride railroad ticket offered on LIRR and Metro-North Railroad trips within New York City. According to the MTA, 1.5 million CityTickets were sold in 2023. PCAC recommends investing Outer Borough Transportation Account (OBTA) funds to introduce a weekly CityTicket that includes optional discounted transfers to New York City Transit subways and buses.

^{Suggested Funding Source: Outer Borough Transportation Account | Weekly CityTicket Cost: $25 million; $40-$50 million with free transfer to New York City Transit.}

Expand Fair Fares to the commuter railroads within New York City

Fair Fares is an income-based half fare program for New York City residents at or below 145% of the Federal Poverty Level, but only on New York City Transit.

Many eligible riders live in subway deserts but close to either the LIRR or Metro-North stations.

PCAC analysis found that 70% of the city’s 39 railroad stations are adjacent to census tracts where over 25% of residents are eligible for Fair Fares. New York City is one of two large cities not to offer income-based fares on its commuter rails, despite having the highest poverty rate of cities surveyed. Fair Fares on the railroads, when discounted from the price of a CityTicket, would increase access to opportunity for tens of thousands of New Yorkers.

^{Suggested Funding Source: New York City | Cost: $30-$35 million}

Expand Fair Fares to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level

New York City’s Fair Fares program provides half-fares to New York City residents living at or below 145% of the Federal Poverty Level. Most minimum wage workers currently do not qualify.

PCAC analysis found that among the top ten U.S. most populous cities with similar programs, New York City has the highest poverty rate and lowest eligibility threshold.

Expansion to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level would bring eligibility to as many as 450,000 more New Yorkers. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are ineligible at the current eligibility threshold of 145% of FPL.

^{Suggested Funding Source: New York City | Cost: $36-$40 million (Community Service Society)}

Beyond New York City Transit and the railroads, we encourage the legislature to examine ways to continue to improve Access-A-Ride service, including fare capping and unlimited cards for Access-A-Ride users who currently do not have the benefits afforded to riders of the other MTA services or potentially expanding to the Fair Fares program to Access-A-Ride users over 64 years of age.

Full Report Recommendations in Brief

In the post-COVID era, transit in New York City and around the region faces profound challenges and exciting opportunities. Though OMNY’s evolution may not be what was originally planned, the fact remains that modernized fare payment technology creates vast opportunities to make our transit systems operate more seamlessly than ever before, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries – putting riders first.

Riders need champions at all levels of government who will prioritize these issues, including at the MTA Board level. Currently, there are three non-voting rider representatives on the MTA Board who regularly raise the issue of fare integration and affordability, but they do not have a vote. The Rider Representation Act S.20A/A.923A (2023-24 session) would help give a voice to riders on the MTA Board and help advance the Rider-First Fare Agenda.

In the short-term, integrating various ticketing platforms and identifying funding to pilot fare incentives may be technologically or politically burdensome, but New York – and the millions of riders who depend on transit – can only gain by taking steps, however small, towards more seamless travel. In doing so, the region can make transit the best option for everyone– allowing riders and participating jurisdictions to reap the benefits of a region more closely connected than ever before.

The post Rider-First Fare Payment appeared first on PCAC.