Comments
Die-Nacht t1_jcmoike wrote
The fares should NOT cover the total cost of the system. No transit system works like that.
The simple fact is that transportation has to be subsidized, it can't ever be "profitable". And that's all transportation, even private car usage is heavily subsidized.
One of the big reasons public transit sucks in this country is that we keep demanding that it be profitable, all while not demanding the same from other forms of transport (aka, the car industry).
andruuNewgen t1_jcn89y4 wrote
And fares is an oversimplified way to look at the value of transit. The subway increases economic activity where ever it runs, which increases tax revenues and land values in general and its only fair some of that funnels back into the transit system.
iamnotimportant t1_jcnjxif wrote
That's how a lot of other cities run it, the transit system owns the land near their stations, that land is obviously more valuable cause there's transit there, they directly benefit as a result.
EmoRedneck t1_jd65sc3 wrote
What cities?
iamnotimportant t1_jd67x2h wrote
Tokyo, hong kong ther'es probably others. I forget one of them also has a metro card that doubles as a pay card for everything.
greenlambda t1_jcnxk2j wrote
This is not true. Both the London Underground and the Tokyo metro system have >100% Farebox recovery ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio There are reasonable discussions to be had about what the “ideal” ratio should be, but self funded is sometimes possible.
gammison t1_jco5zff wrote
For London that's mainly because of the way fares work and the reduced number of stations and hours even though there's slightly more track. The system is divided up into zones encircling central London and depending on between which zones you are traveling and whether you are traveling at a peak hour, the fare goes up.
It would be like if within the bottom half of Manhattan, and within each borough the fare was 2.75 but then if you crossed between them you'd get charged an extra two dollars. There are also daily and weekly caps that depend on zones and peak times. It's a pretty complicated fare system.
The weekly cap for the largest zone travel is like 90 dollars, way more than the 33 dollar cap the MTA has.
The buses in London also work differently and some are much cheaper than the London Underground (and MTA) and have daily caps of like 5 dollars while others are more expensive.
Buses in London are also subsidized, unlike the trains. Makes sense considering there are over 700 lines and like 20 thousand bus stops in London, double that of the MTA.
The Tokyo metro also has ticket price tiers that depend on distance traveled (they still use paper tickets where you get a source and destination station iirc). These actually cap out at like $2.50 USD. Again though, beyond the cost of operation being cheaper in Japan, there are reduced hours and fewer stations and daily ridership is actually higher than the NYC subway.
All this is to say, these self funded systems depend on pretty different conditions from the MTA. The MTA to self fund like this would have to do a combination of hour reductions and tiered distance and congestion pricing.
It would be very expensive just to to make the logistical changes to how swipes work for that, but imo is also just not socially worth it. I'd rather have a progressive percentage tax on all city residents and businesses (to hit the commuters out of city) and make the whole system free than do some chicanery of "well we'll target 50 percent self funded so raise fares x amount, spend this much to do cross-borough pricing, and reduce hours by y".
We should also transition the MTA to being fully state owned, not the current public benefit corporation model.
chetlin t1_jco80bz wrote
They charge £6.70 minimum too if you pay with cash, which I did the first time I took a train there in 2019 :( from King's Cross to Old Street, just a couple stops, equivalent to $8.16.
gammison t1_jcob4tg wrote
Yeah they do that on purpose to force people to use cards and phones.
woodcider t1_jco42b5 wrote
I’m guessing the fact that they both have zoned fares helps. A flat rate at the same ridership level will bring in less revenue.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_jcnxlkf wrote
>The farebox recovery ratio (also called fare recovery ratio, fare recovery rate or other terms) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total operating expenses.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcnsya4 wrote
1000%. the subway is a service that makes the city a desirable place to live, work, and do business. it enables people to move freely and cheaply throughout the city throughout the day and night, visitors and citizens alike. the goal is not to make a direct profit off of these people for the city. the goal is to use public funds to benefit the public -- to spend tax dollars to improve the lives and livelihood of the citizenry and visitors to the city.
YutaniCasper t1_jco633h wrote
Japanese trains are a mix of a public/private and they’re stellar
RyzinEnagy t1_jcpxznk wrote
True on a macro level.
NYC had a specific set of circumstances. The nickel fare was kept way too long, and the city's money went to Moses' highways instead of system maintenance. The city went broke in the 70s and was forced to cede control of the subways to the state. Today we're playing catch-up for maintenance that should have been done 50-100 years ago, and the subway is still under state control.
Powerful-Attorney-26 t1_jcruhdq wrote
The subways were taken over by the state in the 1960s.
dlerach t1_jctg8ge wrote
Unification of the subway system happened in 1940.
[deleted] t1_jcmsm4z wrote
[deleted]
k1lk1 t1_jcomur5 wrote
As pointed out below, you're simply wrong on the point that farebox recovery can't ever fund the system.
Upleftright_syndrome t1_jd3zyy0 wrote
It can't ever fund the system, though. We'd have to completely change the system to a new system. It'd be a completely different system.
User-no-relation t1_jclvbx5 wrote
Why?
vanshnookenraggen t1_jcm10kc wrote
The cost of everything has gone up, and now there are a third fewer daily riders.
One of the biggest factors is debt. The MTA pays for all their capital improvements with debt, which has to be repaid. And right now, when interests rates are high, that debt costs a lot more.
I__LOVE__LSD t1_jcnak4q wrote
Interest rates are high in the context of the past decade, but not so much in the context of the last century.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
The St Louis Fed has this chart of the fed funds rate going back 70 years, and where we're currently at is still fairly low.
ArcticBeavers t1_jcnjw5j wrote
MTA had it's highest day of ridership in 3 years yesterday. Obviously still much less than pre COVID but 1/3 might be a bit much
oreosfly t1_jctzbtg wrote
Not really. Average daily ridership pre COVID was about 5.5 million. 3.94 mil / 5.5 million = 71.6%, which is not that far off from 66.7%.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jcmgtt5 wrote
The costs have gone up vs inflation because other things goods and services have experienced efficiencies and there has been very little efficiencies in the MTA even 100 years later.
The second part. Ridership has declined during covid so there are less fares but the MTA is incapable of cutting service or moving around the schedule to meet changes in demand due to the union.
SnooSongs2714 t1_jcomzxe wrote
Seems like they can’t cut service because of the public outcry too. Seems like there are always people at board meetings complaining about every modification of service. As a general rules, seems to me the public only want more service, not less.
User-no-relation t1_jcmnukl wrote
I mean it went from $1.75 100 years ago to $2.75. That's not a huge increase
edman007 t1_jcn4ste wrote
No, they are saying it was $1.75 for everything, now it's $8.25 and you pay a third ($2.75).
User-no-relation t1_jcn5qgt wrote
The graph is inflation adjusted
edman007 t1_jcn7paq wrote
Yes, it's inflation adjusted. But it's the cost to ride, not the per customer cost to operate. It's missing the second graph, the subsides provided by the government.
They were 0 when it started. It's absolutely not anymore. The MTA says fares only make up 23% of their budget. So MTA wide, the cost per ride is $11.96.
That $1.75 at the start was more than the cost per ride (since they were private companies with some amount of profit). The $2.75 for today is a tiny fraction of the cost.
lilBob1989 t1_jcnzgid wrote
Huh interestingly that is a lot closer to true average price on london tube
woodcider t1_jco3tbk wrote
We complain but a flat fare is such a good thing for commuters.
Powerful-Attorney-26 t1_jcruo9l wrote
It isn't the unions. It is that the city needs the level of service to function.
IIAOPSW t1_jcniv1s wrote
Well, the first part of the graph from 1904 to 1954 is a historical accident. Basically the subway was built by contracting it out to private companies, namely the BMT and IRT. But the city couldn't afford the full price up front, so part of the payment was that these companies got to also run the service and collect fares. Part of the contracts made certain stipulations to prevent these companies from screwing the public, among them being fares were capped at 5 cents. Flash forward 50 years, inflation happens but fares are still capped. Populist view both companies as "greedy corporations" and have been trying to murder them since the 20s, and so they finally get their wish. Neither company could stay solvent at that price cap, and no elected official wanted to amend the contract and let them raise it. The city buys up the bankrupt private operators which is how we get to where we are today. Then for the first time fares get to rise to match (and apparently surpass) inflation.
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcnsdt1 wrote
stipulations to prevent companies from screwing the public?
imagine such a world...
tonka737 t1_jcqtsu1 wrote
Everything also going bankrupt or investors choose not to take on that burden and the city is left trying to dig itself out of financial holes via taxes and such. Sounds shitty to me.
AnacharsisIV t1_jcnuat7 wrote
Maintenance has to be a huge part of it. There are parts of the system still using parts designed (if not manufactured) a century ago. In many cases there are no companies manufacturing replacement parts, so they have to be machined in-house by the MTA. I'm pretty sure there are literal blacksmiths employed by the MTA because that was still state of the art technology when the subways were constructed.
Years of deferred maintenance are catching up.
ArmArtArnie t1_jcn5pgw wrote
The fact that a huge number of riders don't pay contributes to this
mistrsteve t1_jcwhkpe wrote
What proportion of riders do you think don't pay, and how much do you think that contributes to the farebox recovery ratio?
ArmArtArnie t1_jcwiiw4 wrote
From watching people getting on and off the bus I ride every day, I would say 40% of the people getting on aren't paying and that's being conservative
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcnsk6c wrote
do you have a source that the fare used to cover the cost? because that seems incredibly unrealistic beyond maybe the first few years. the fare literally didn't change until after WWII.
Powerful-Attorney-26 t1_jcrurx1 wrote
I think that the fsres stopped covering the cost about 1915.
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcsg7ya wrote
no idea if that's true but thats about what i would've assumed, give or take -- so doesn't that kind of make the previous comment somewhat meaningless?
dust1990 OP t1_jclxwio wrote
OP here, just posting the data as I thought it was interesting. The current fare of $2.75 has been in place for nearly 8 years, which is the third longest stretch. The initial fare of $0.05 was in place for over 44 years and there was a 13 year stretch in the 50s and 60s with a $0.15 fare.
Source: CPI-U, 1913 to 2023
Source: Inflation, 1904 to 1912
Source: Subway Fares
ottprim t1_jcmc78v wrote
The $0.05 was a political thing. Every mayor ran with the promise to keep that fare. It was the cause of the three systems going bankrupt leaving the running of the subway to the city.
sutisuc t1_jcmx65e wrote
Weren’t all the subway lines privately run at that point?
ottprim t1_jcmxywg wrote
Yes. The BMT, IRT, and IND were companies. Some had buses too, but the city legislated the fare the could charge.
AwesomeWhiteDude t1_jcnv3pu wrote
IND was owned and operated by the city
Sun_Devilish t1_jcnn80l wrote
> the city legislated the fare the could charge.
/facepalm
No wonder they went out of business.
Past-Passenger9129 t1_jcowst0 wrote
To be fair, look at the crazy curve of the cost relative to today's dollar over that 40+ year span. The economy was anything but stable.
sutisuc t1_jcmy84h wrote
Wow. Can’t even fathom the city trying to dictate what a private company could charge today. Thanks for sharing
funforyourlife t1_jcn12bt wrote
Utility companies literally have their rates set by the government
bayoublue t1_jcnruvj wrote
The city payed for the construction of the subway lines and owned them. The private operators had operating agreements to run them.
ottprim t1_jcn3gkl wrote
There's an interesting book about the early subway called Uptown/Downtown.
https://www.amazon.com/Uptown-Downtown-Through-Yorks-Subways/dp/0801581966
sutisuc t1_jcn6m9n wrote
Thanks I’ll check it out
Powerful-Attorney-26 t1_jcrtu3p wrote
The city had paid for the construction and let the private companies make the profits. The actual tracks and stations have always been owned by the city. Massive corporate welfare. And indeed the owners of the private companies make a fortune early in the subways' existence. First of all the seems were profitable themselves for about the first ten years, and the owners were able to engage in massive amounts of land speculation because they knew where the lines and stations were going to be put.
IIAOPSW t1_jcnjfd2 wrote
This is almost true. It was a political thing, but mayors didn't run on it. Rather, the 5 cent fare was a stipulation in the dual contracts the city had with the IRT and BMT to build and operate the subway. These companies couldn't legally raise their fares.
anonyuser415 t1_jcnodxi wrote
You have the arrangement right, but the person you're replying to had it right too. It was a massive issue after post-WWI inflation. Reading the wording of the contracts I don't really get it. The contracts say the fare will be a nickle until 1966. But there it is:
> Well before [the price increased to a dime in 1948] the issue of whether to increase the fare had challenged many mayors, become the subject of campaign promises and provoked fierce clashes with powerful interest groups.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/nyregion/mta-fare-hike.html
> Mayor John Hylan, who took office in 1918, made the nickel fare a linchpin of his administration and a cudgel he used against the IRT and BRT. The city’s insistence on retaining the nickel fare became a political hot potato that affected every mayor from Hylan to William O’Dwyer, who took office in 1946. During O’Dwyer’s first term, the historic nickel barrier was finally breached, but not before years of contentious, vociferous, and often bitter debates about the merits and problems of charging five cents for a ride that could be twenty miles long from Wakefield in the Bronx to East New York in Brooklyn.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780823261925-009/html
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcm42jh wrote
To caveat, however, there have been several times when there has been a bonus on the fare. Up until a couple years ago, you used to get an extra 5% when you put money on your metrocard, so the fare has essentially gone up more recently than that. The cost of unlimited metrocards and MNR/LIRR fares also increased.
dust1990 OP t1_jcm5d6v wrote
True this doesn’t factor the bonus which recently went away. This plots the base fare only. Do you know where I might find info on the bonus history? Regardless I doubt it would make much difference.
Edit: thanks everyone. I’ll try to add this to see if it makes a material difference.
colonelcasey22 t1_jcm8t8f wrote
Looks like the history of the MetroCard bonuses of it can be extracted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroCard
Doubt it's ever coming back with OMNY in effect and fewer people pre-loading amounts to a card.
Pennwisedom t1_jcnn150 wrote
> ewer people pre-loading amounts to a card.
It's a chicken and the egg problem in this case really. I stopped pre-loading my card because the bonus went away.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_jcm8uuf wrote
>The MetroCard is a magnetic stripe card used for fare payment on transportation in the New York City area. It is a payment method for the New York City Subway (including the Staten Island Railway), New York City Transit buses and MTA buses. The MetroCard is also accepted by several partner agencies: Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE), the PATH train system, the Roosevelt Island Tramway, AirTrain JFK, and Westchester County's Bee-Line Bus System. The MetroCard was introduced in 1993 to enhance the technology of the transit system and eliminate the burden of carrying and collecting tokens.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcm9g19 wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroCard under history. It actually would make a decent dent. At one point, the bonus was 20%.
doodle77 t1_jcprlar wrote
Also the unlimited MetroCard.
The MTA reports the average fare paid per ride in it's annual reports. In 2019 it was $2.10, and it increased significantly in the pandemic as commutation ridership dropped.
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcnryvr wrote
used to be a whopping 20%. when they dropped it to 15% it was a big deal.
mowotlarx t1_jcosuop wrote
I miss the bonus.
PatrickMaloney1 t1_jcok4vs wrote
OP, if you get bored, I’d love to see another line showing overall ridership during the same period, but this is already great as it is so no pressure
RobotsSkateBest t1_jcmcxik wrote
I remember going up to the booth with my $10 and getting a ten pack. It was little clear plastic bag with ten tokens. It used to last me the work week.
woodcider t1_jco3ewt wrote
Did you have a token holder? Those made tokens easier to manage.
RainbowGoddamnDash t1_jcoausl wrote
Wow that just brought back some memories
mowotlarx t1_jcmit0f wrote
Now compare it to how much the average salary has grown compared to inflation
dust1990 OP t1_jcmjr6o wrote
I’ll consider it. Median would probably be a better measure. Real wages definitely have gone up since 1904 though less so post 1980s. Open to suggestions on what you want to see.
gault8121 t1_jcmlzgu wrote
Could you plot median real wages against subway fare increases? E.g. if the average cost of a ticket has gone from $1.50 to $3 over 100 years, but the average real wages have tripled, the cost would be lower, correct?
dust1990 OP t1_jcmnufj wrote
Without pulling the data, yes that’s what I would expect. It’s still a relative bargain especially considering it’s not a zoned system like other systems (London, Tokyo, etc.)
Pennwisedom t1_jcno0m8 wrote
The Zones are hard to compare. For instance in Tokyo, on average the vast majority of the rides I took were about 160-190 yen each way, so basically $1.60-$1.90, on the Yamanote line itself the most expensive is 260 Yen. I definitely spend less money in a Month on the train in Japan than I do on the Subway.
Rides that cost more tend to go further out than the Subway system and would be more comparable to the LIRR or Metro North. But its not a perfect comparison and there are certainly specific places where it could be more, and not every train company has the same price structure.
gault8121 t1_jcmvira wrote
Yeah, for sure. It might be interesting to make that if you can get the data and have the time. Given how other tickets cost like $5, I do wonder whether the idea of say a $3.50 ticket is viable as a way of increasing fare revenue.
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcntexx wrote
might as well add in housing costs and other costs of living.
Luke90210 t1_jcn8j8q wrote
This ignores the modern free transfers from subway to buses and buses to subway. The 2 fare zone mattered if you had to pay it. Also I don't have to pay $1 for a MetroCard with an expiration date if I use a credit card.
dust1990 OP t1_jcn9bu7 wrote
The $1 metrocard fee amortized over many months is negligible. The free transfer to bus is interesting as you now get more value with the base fare. But most people don’t use the transfer and you essentially have to buy it.
I’m going to factor in in a subsequent post the pay-per-ride bonus which should make the curve from 1998 to today even flatter.
Luke90210 t1_jcn9w3a wrote
Personally I don't care about the $1 fee for the card. Its finding out at the worst possible time the card is expired. And the MTA is hoping people will just throw it away instead of transferring the value to a new card.
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcntq55 wrote
can you even transfer it to a new card anymore? i haven't needed to in a while but someone told me they couldn't do it not too long ago. but they might have been trying to combine multiple cards.
RyuNoKami t1_jcnz2cp wrote
if its expired within one year, you can just do that in the machine.
past that, you gonna have to send it in.
curiiouscat t1_jcnjtgd wrote
When I was young and broke I would do so many creative things with the free transfer lol. Most subway lines have a comparable bus line so I'd take the 1 to the grocery store and then the M104 back, for instance. That way I'd only pay one fare. I had a bunch of poor friends do this as well. I still try to take advantage if I end a doctor's appointment early or something by taking the alternative form of transit since you have 2h30m. It's good fun and can really work in your favor.
dust1990 OP t1_jcnk0u2 wrote
I’ve admittedly done this as well!
damnatio_memoriae t1_jcntxx8 wrote
lol i still do the subway/bus transfer trick. been doing that for over 20 years.
Postalsock t1_jcniboj wrote
You remember the return tickets, I think it was 25 cents more than the normal fare but instead of spending 3 dollars to go and back you just spend $1.75 to go back on the same bus route going back. And then the transfer ticket which didn't cost extra but allowed you to switch to a different bus
IGOMHN2 t1_jcoivb3 wrote
New Yorkers are the biggest whiners on the planet. $2.75 is a very reasonable price to pay for MTA service. It would also be fine if they raised it to $3.
Postalsock t1_jcp2i0r wrote
No that's 3 dollars everyday, plus they got come back home so it's $6. Got to mix subway and bus, now it's $12. So minimal $6 to $12 every working day assuming a standard work week $30 to $60 dollars a week. That's is kinda costly. Do they still allow unlimited weekly and monthly cards? Even with that it's still something.
[deleted] t1_jcpdp3k wrote
[deleted]
Postalsock t1_jcpn5xe wrote
The ability (at least 10 years ago) to go everywhere at anytime, directly is worth the extra cost. The only real problem is parking.
ElCalvo069 t1_jcqhk1p wrote
There's free transfers between bus and subway.
Upleftright_syndrome t1_jd40te8 wrote
Get the unlimited my guy
MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_jcp8pvp wrote
It costs $127 for a monthly unlimited Metrocard. You can use it as many times as you want, which when you factor in trips outside the roundtrip to and from work Monday - Friday - makes the fare much lower then $2.75 per ride.
I’m always amazed when people complain about the cost of transit or what they aren’t getting for their fare money.
sbb214 t1_jcpu4wa wrote
I'm with you.
Blackspeare41 t1_jcmwt28 wrote
I remember the fare being a dime and we still complained!!
CultofCedar t1_jcoq0c3 wrote
My mom who never owned a car breathing easy with her unlimited lifetime MTA card. A shitty perk from working the token booths back in the day.
hatts t1_jcpjkvj wrote
I think the fare is probably underpriced at the moment, plus we have no zone pricing. I don’t think it’s a regressive stance to say we’re probably due for a fare increase.
Obviously so many other financial problems should be fixed at the MTA before touching the fare price, but this is something that would be comparatively easy to enact, and sometimes you gotta grab the low hanging fruit.
There are LOTS of ways to reduce the standard fare — from reduced fare cards to monthly unlimited cards.
CorporalDingleberry t1_jcptc92 wrote
How come the MTA hasn't adopted the idea of paying the amount based on how far you've traveled (i.e. going from the Bronx to Brooklyn just cost more than going from UWS to Midtown)?
That's how the commuter trains work in addition to other subway systems in other countries.
bat_in_the_stacks t1_jcslfcm wrote
The majority of people probably commute by train from the outer boroughs to Manhattan or make a similar trip for fun on weekends. Buses are usually more local. To track distance, you either need to get people to swipe out or have someone check that their pre-paid fare is enough. It's a hassle.
shinebock t1_jcwrzhv wrote
> To track distance, you either need to get people to swipe out ... It's a hassle.
It's a "hassle" that plenty of public transit systems manage just fine. It's really not much of a hassle either, it simply requires that as you exit the turnstile/gate you tap your card again.
Now of course the MTA is still getting up to speed on these new fangled contraptions, but it's really not a big deal. An RFID stored value card for public transit is incredibly common, even in the US, its just something the MTA didn't bother to try to figure out until recently.
bat_in_the_stacks t1_jcwxr9f wrote
But what's the point? It adds stress to the commute in order to charge someone who lives in a different borough than they work in more? That's likely a regressive fee structure for the most part because the poorer you are, the less likely you can live near where you work (which saves valuable time every day). I don't think anyone is clamoring for changing the MTA fee structure to make it distance based.
octoreadit t1_jcq9bev wrote
Cool stats, to nitpick a bit: I remember some time ago there was a 5% "bonus" when you recharged your metrocard, but then it got eliminated, so there was a somewhat of a price hike it was just obfuscated by how it was done.
dust1990 OP t1_jcqa0yw wrote
Thanks. Yes, others pointed out this leaves out the bonus from the metrocard years. Will update when I have time.
octoreadit t1_jcqaf9k wrote
See it now, yes, sorry for spamming then 😉 Don't know if you can get historical unlimited monthly plan pricing (no idea when it started), but if you do, could be interesting too.
LUCKYMAZE t1_jcniv0y wrote
They fix the MTA before even thinking about raising it
anonu t1_jcnwk1n wrote
Looks like its due for a price hike soon. $3.50
CertainInformation56 t1_jd8a58v wrote
at least it did not go with the general inflation
demonoid_admin t1_jcpt8d7 wrote
God damn FDR and the New Dealers kicked so much ass.
dust1990 OP t1_jcq80r4 wrote
Well, never raising the nickel fare did bankrupt the system and cause a governmental takeover.
Airhostnyc t1_jcrepj0 wrote
Didn’t work long term lol
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jcluz09 wrote
The true cost of running the system has skyrocketed. The fare used to cover the total cost of the system. Now the fare covers about 1/3 the cost of a ride(pre covid). Probably less now that the ridership is down.