Washington DC has had a distance based fair for as long as I've been here 12 + years, with rush hour costing slightly more. Recently they had a "Peek-of-the-peek" which high demand hours being the rush hour (say from 4 - 7pm) but the peek of the peek 5 - 6 costing even more. This is all done with an RFID enabled card that you carry in your wallet. The ticket registers your card at the time and location of your boarding (scanned through the turnstyle), but you scan again to leave.
Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
It's still Beijing's best deal: RMB 2 for a one-time, one-way fare anywhere the Beijing Subway serves in the city, excluding the airport. But riders may soon face the distance-based fare system used by other cities such as Hong Kong and Shanghai, to relieve congestion and generate more revenue for the congested system, official news reports indicated Monday.
When the subway network was less extensive, fares were a negligible RMB 0.5 per ride. With the expansion of lines, fares rose to RMB 3 per ride in 1999, regardless of distance, but were then reduced to RMB 2 in 2007 after public outcry. They've stayed the same until now.
There is no timetable for any rise or a final decision yet that it will happen, but as with this year's taxi fare increase, a finalized municipal government plan will be opened for "public comment" prior to implementation about a month later.
This is one area that we think won't make any difference. Even for a few more kuai per day or month, subway users aren't going to switch back to stop-and-go surface traffic. It may make people less happy about their commute, but it's doubtful it will actually reduce the number of subway riders. And to what end? To push more people back on to surface transport?
Are you a regular Subway rider? Would you be willing to pay a bit more for less congestion? Do you think it will help? Let us know in our Comments section below.
Photo: Beijing Trip
Related stories :
Comments
New comments are displayed first.
Login or register to post comments.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
@ Squid:
The admin's link (above) is going to open your eyes a bit further on subsidies (as well as mention another source which backs up my assertion of current fare price being possibly only due to a large amount of subsidies). As I posted in response to the above article, ¥7 to ride Shanghai Metro's entire Line 1 (28 stations) seems extremely reasonable and if you and your Tongzhou brethren can't handle such, then time to find in employment in Tongzhou rather than getting well underpaid in the city. I am hoping the era of "cheapskating" for BJ Subway will soon reach its inevitable end -- and for the public's sake, the sooner the better!!
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Indeed indeed, Lynkx. One shouldn't discuss public policy which affects potentially millions of people lives and which helps to address one of the world's largest cities most pressing urban problem.
Instead one should lurk around at an internet cafe telling people to get a life. Well played life Guru! Or rather Lifegurulifeguru.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
I admit, I give thoughtful responses. I am not prone to rants. If you do have ADD, I guess that proves further what my opening line in previous post was alluding to. Autism, I don't think that's what's at hand here (I realize you're being cheeky -- do not take this as my stance, because other than admittance, I have no way to test whether you in fact have ADD -- nor do I care.)
In regards to your question, 90 people aren't paying less. They're paying for what they use -- just like the other 10 would be doing. The fact that they ride the subway for a shorter distance determines why they pay "less" overall, but no less per KM. Yeah, my dinner cost less because I had noodles, the other guy had a porterhouse. But we both paid fixed costs (service charge, etc.) But if I would've ordered porterhouse, I would've paid exactly the same thing as my restaurant mate. In regards to my example, you are to show me cost calculation, not payment. The reason you are being asked to do this is because you believe ALL riders cost the subway operators the same.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
"If you have 100 riders, and 90 of them get off within 5 stations and 10 of them go all the way until the end, please show me where the 10 people's costs are the same as the 90."
I think one of us is either autistic or has ADD. I accept it could be me, because I admit I have a hard time paying attention to your posts past the thrid sentence.
Perhaps you can show me how ten people paying more is going to make up for 90 people paying less. How much more can those ten pay, that is going to balance out the discount for the 90?
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Your thoughtfulness, or lack thereof, is clear for all to see.
1) Your are confused about the advertising/sales team bit. You said additional costs could be shouldered by more advertising and rental shop fees. I told you the former, if an actual solution, would certainly have been tried by now. The latter, well, you seemed to have conveniently not replied to that one until the bottom (and completely misunderstood the point).
2) Your first paragraph, thank you, you now seem to get the definition of a public good. Thank you showing you were twisting my words, but I'm afraid you have done it again in regards to other things (keep reading).
3) You never want to talk about distance-fare buses, and deem distance-based fares as "nonsense." Oh, so China Railways, and Euro Rail and Japan Rail and Amtrak and countless others, they all have their revenue structure based on nonsense, eh? Hogwash. It's like you are unwilling to accept that there are distance-fare buses operating in this city, as well. You are unwilling to accept that a bus ride for a Changpinger is more than a bus ride from Dongsi-DZM. And why is that? Is there not the same terminus and last stop for buses as there are for subways? Oh, I know why! Because the longer distance you ride, the more energy you are forcing the bus to use, and thus the more you are being asked to pay! Novel concept, but hardly rocket science so I have hope for you. You love to suggest that if there is no subway, people on the outskirts will have to ride their mule into town. I will take your response seriously once you start coming up with a reasonable defense or counter-proposal.
4) The reason utilities are paid for on a consumption basis is not simply because people "will waste it" if flat fee-only. It is because the usage levels are so dramatically different from abode to abode there is no more fair way to charge people other than on that which they consume. If abodes are the community are quite homogenous, then the community may tell their utility company or city council or neighborhood management association differently, of course. But at the end of the day, no matter what, the utility company has to pay for the raw resources which they purchased, and their consumers must ensure that balance owed is zero. Also, there is no incentive to conserve or purchase more efficient appliances, etc if strictly a flat fee. Water in NYC is free -- you do not see the front page of the NYT clamoring "water shortage," do you? You continue to ignore the things which are distance-based, usage-based, etc. so I will say no more. You are the one comparing apples to oranges. You also fail to provide a counter-point for that which you originally brought up and I replied to, so I take it you have seen the light.
5) Of course people win when mass transit is used. And even more to the point, people who ride the subway win when they pay for that which they consumed -- nothing more, nothing less! You seem intent on punishing those who utilize lesser resources by asking them to pay more than someone who rides for 20 km. Again, countless distance-based fare examples out there. Again, "cost" is made up of sub-costs, each differing from one scenario to the other. If you have 100 riders, and 90 of them get off within 5 stations and 10 of them go all the way until the end, please show me where the 10 people's costs are the same as the 90. If your plan was so good, so fair, city after city would not have adopted what I am arguing for. You forget (or are confused) that I am not asking those who ride 10km to pay for 20 km. No, I am asking those who ride 20 km to pay for 20 km, and those who ride 1 km to pay 1 km. And of course each passenger will continue to pay the fixed costs -- those are the same and can't be skirted, and am not asking for them to be skirted.
6) I never, EVER said stores inside stations would destroy that which is above ground. Please, copy and paste that so I can see where I typed that. I was explaining that if there was enough demand for station stores to offset additional costs (as you suggested as a remedy), do you not think the operators would've worked out a business deal with would-be vendors by now? And you again think it more fair to ask shop keepers to shoulder the burden? Oh, for heaven's sake, get on with it, mate! Stop trying to pass of your long-haul costs on to everyone else except yourself! Take a deep breath before you read, before getting yourself so full of emotion you fail to understand the words on the digital page. Who's the luddite? It's plain to see. There's no reason to call someone who disagrees with your argument -- and has presented countable claims and has actually backed up assertions I've made with actual reports or links or publication names -- such a term, but I guess it's what you do when the counter-arguments hold water, your claims have largely been called out, and you want to make this personal. You keep on trying to assert you own and determine fairness, and seem hell bent on trying to pass the buck onto the next guy.
7) "Is better than" is your opinion. The most fair way to charge people is based on what they use. This is exemplified in countless other modes of transport as well as subway transport; in this city and other municipalities.
8) "Less costs for all." Hogwash. Less cost for you and your Tongzhou brethren if those who use fewer resources continue to shoulder more than their fair share of the cost burden, but not less costs for ALL.
It's OK for you to disagree with me, but when you call things BS simply because you disagree with them, it doesn't make it so. Just like when you discounted my assertion that current fares were subsidized, or that HK Tramways could have a fixed fare because there was this thing called the MTR, and I showed you such could be verified, nullifying your claims and bringing you into the light, I fail to see much reasoning or support or evidence or solid ground theorizing put forth by you. People hold on to their opinions, for the strangest and easy-to-see reasons, but to base an argument simply on opinion is setting you up to be on the opposite side of the facts.
Yea, no kidding I benefit from the government testing medicine, because then we don't have an entire society of sick people dying and not beng productive members of the community.
In JUST the same way, we all benefit by having people use the subway to get into the city, rather than having them drive their packed mini vans, or three wheeled scooters. This is the point see?
There is however, a huge difference between energy and water consumption and getting on and off a subway. This seems to be a fundamental part of the equation you have a really hard time understanding. You know why you pay more for electricity when you use more, instead of a flat rate no matter how much you use? SO YOU WON'T USE TOO MUCH AND WASTE IT FOR OTHERS TO USE!!! Get it?? Using the subway is not a waste its a benefit for all! You can type a thousand page thesis if you like, but that aint going to change this simple fact, that undermines your whole distance costs more nonsense. Having subway lines that go to Changping and tongzhou and the suburbs means more people on the subway, less people in cars in buses, and more people paying for the subway. Everyone wins!
The rest you write is just BS frankly. Your silly arguments about having to hire more people to sell more advertising? Are you joking? About having stores inside the subway wil destroy those outside? So you are a luddite who doesn't believe in development? I said it once and you didn't get it, so I will try one last time. If there needs to be a fee increase, an across the board one which raises the fees only slightly, but for more people, is much better than one which raises the fee substantially for the few unlucky ones.
In other words, a community. A group society, where more people contributing, means less costs for all. I believe it is a concept first considered sometime around 1800 B.C. Perhaps earlier.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
1) Signage/advertising already exists. A staff member (or more likely a sales team) needs to be paid, so it's not money from the sky. As the subway lines get more extensive, more costs ensue. If the current operating model is insolvent, the status quo is not getting it done. If it was as simple as increasing advertising dollars, do you not think the powers that be would've already enacted such a seemingly simple fix? No, dear, Squid, they are risking getting people in a fussy because that is clearly not the elixir to their ails (it could help make deficits less deep, but not eliminated).
2) Not all stations have shops, nor should all of them based upon demand and above-ground competition already in existence. Increasing shop fees might also cause more vendors to pack up and leave. What do you think a typical vendor's margin is? Again, if that was the answer, the public debate would not be necessary as deficits would've already been dealt with.
3) Subways do not run "no matter what". Or if they do, it's not like the frequency of trains can't be lessened and overhead reduced in order to run closer within budget. If they do run "no matter what," it is a wasted public good and I would hate to have you be my mayor or president, running your pet projects no matter the public money it eats up which could be better spent elsewhere. Trust me, if people drastically change their habits, the city's transporation powers will adapt (if you don't believe me, check the frequency of trains on Line 1 vs. Line 6, or variance in "first train/last train" times at various stations around this city).
4) There is an extra cost with carrying someone for a greater distance -- that is why a train ticket to Tianjin costs less than to Guangzhou. What word we choose to label an underground train and above ground train doesn't change how costs are racked up. If there is no perceived or true demand, do you really think a subway station will be built in that area? You may have heard of "The Bridge to Nowhere" -- if not, search it. Stations are built based upon demand, pure and simple. The operators work with the city and dig into a neighborhood's population density, # of KMs to nearest bus station/subway station, etc. They build these stations based upon models which take into account current and forecasted demand. Interchange stations are integral to operating something like a subway, which unlike a bus, can't turn around anywhere it wants so considering the subway currently is the same price for everyone, not only are taxpayers subsidizing your ride to Tongzhou, but so too are your Beijing brethren who are riding far lesser distances. If there was no greater cost in transporting you to Tongzhou, then there wouldn't be such things as suburban subway lines (which run far less frequently) or things like Line 1 interchange at Sihui, where the operator has formulated that demand at a certain point east of the CBD falls off so sharply, that indeed it's cheaper to build an interchange platform and turn the train around to go back west and have you and your mates wait for the suburban train to take you to Taqiao. For further evidence, look at Lines 9 and 5, which cease to exist in their current form and transform into suburban lines -- why? Because of costs, dear Squid! (Your property management fee incorporates far greater number of expenses/services than simply elevators...building security, cleaning, trash disposal, light bulbs, repairs, gardening, etc. -- you are comparing a basket of services with one service...you need a better analogy, mate.)
5) Pay-as-you go exists for a plethora of China mobile phone users, and their American counterparts. You were complaining about my earlier analogies and now you're talking about something which is priced based on speed and data consumption vs. distance -- perhaps even more to the point, a vital public good such as transport being compared to Internet plans! I am tempted to not go down that route as there are too many other questions I've posed which you continue to ignore. But if you hold my hand to the fire, and you want me to respond to your 'silly analogies' which I fear will only further divert you, I will. Take note it will only support my argument, not yours. Utility companies follow my proposal to the T! You pay for the amount of water, electricity, natural gas, etc. you use, both in China and America. You do not pay some silly flat fee across the board? Why, dear Squid? Because people have told their utilities they would rather only be charged for what they use, and not subsidizing their neighbor's 20-minute showers and 7 deep freezes and 1950's A/C unit. There are fixed fees and there are usage fees. If you look at a pay-as-you-go phone carrier receipt, you will see service fee and usage fees. Same for your water bill. This mimics EXACTLY what I've proposed with the subway and distance-based fare. You are shooting your argument in the foot but since you asked...
6) Do not be confused. I am not saying the #1 reason Beijing should adopt what other cities already employ is simply because other cities are doing it. But I am using it as support, in that subway operaors and the public have created operating models which work for them. I fail to see how Beijing is so different, so with that in mind, yes, I think this is an instance where the majority have it right. So go easy with your robot, blind leading the blind, group theory, cookie cutter, etc. talk. The cheapskates in other cities lost the argument, and for the public good's sake, I hope the same is true for you in this instance.
7) Your last point shows a true lack of understanding. I have never said "cease all subsidies for subways because they aren't a public good." Instead, I've commended the subway and its benefits are clear, both to those who directly benefit and those who indirectly benefit. Hence it's qualifation as a "public good". Public goods reach across all strata of society and do not benefit only a few, regardless of age, race, sex, income, favorite TV show, etc. When the city or nation invests in education, both you and I benefit. When a gov't entity with qualified scientists conducts research and tests medicine and food safety and effecicacy, you benefit even if you yourself don't take that pill or potion or eat an all-imported food diet. You benefit because your Beijing brethren does not eat food which gives him a communicable disease which spreads to you as you sit next to him on your way to Tongzhou, or if you were to contract TB you would be prescribed a medicine which has a 50% change of killing you, or making you impotent, or causing your black hair to turn pink. These are the definitions of public goods. I am not saying people should ONLY pay for those goods which they DIRECTLY use or benefit from. I am saying all who live, work, and breathe in Beijing receive benefits by the subway being in operation and a portion of taxes going towards it. And more than likely, subsidies will continue to help the subway operate. But rather than a blind, across the board hike in all subway fares, or devoting MORE monies to subway operations and LESS monies devoted to other necessary and vital public goods, keep the subsidies constant (at the same level) and let subway riders pay for their share. If that means a switch in transporation modes for you and your Tongzhou brethren or perhaps a shifting of your budget expenditures, so be it. When fuel prices surge and I have to devote more of my budget to filling up my tank, I will not come crawling to the public for assistance, no matter there are roughly 6 mil. registered vehicles in this town and several million more scooters and trucks. That is a problem for those who consume petrol to deal with. When the subway operators say they're hitting hard times, I would only ask the riders to look at themselves to foot the bill -- not for additional outlays. Sure, some who ride the subway have more change to spare, and the same goes for those who use motorized vehicles to traverse this city -- so don't go there with your "rich people drive cars, poor people take the subway" chatter.
Lastly, I again implore you to lighten up on your "migrant worker" schpeel. When you say things like "I am displaying empathy," you are insinuating I must not be displaying empathy. You can't say because I want you to pay more for your ride to Tongzhou because the costs are greater but still have monies available for farming programs, public education (rural and otherwise), water treatment, the arts, and the like that I am somehow not empathetic. Increasing the amount in your favorite public good's pot (or the one which you use most) but reducing it from other program pots doesn't make you empathetic -- it means you have different beliefs.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
You apparently didn't read what I wrote with the same intensity that you are dying for migrant workers to get back to riding the public buses.
What I said was if the subway is really running at a loss, there are ways to increase revenues, including better in station advertising and shop rental fees. Likewise I said if they have to raise the fees do it across the board. Your constant refrain of "its high time people pay for what they use" does not apply to subways. Subways run no matter what. One persons use doesn't have ANY extra cost involved compared to others.
Of course many places charge based on how much you use. Many internet companies in America want to charge people to use the internet based on how much they use. Just because they can do it, doesn't make it good to do it. Are you in favor of paying for internet based on how many bits of data you download?
What is the goal of making people pay based on distance, you want less people using the subway? If that is not the goal, why would you care if a guy doesn't pay more than you, just because he happens to go to a stop that is a arbitrary distance away from yours? You keep saying its good because other citites do it that way. That doesn't make it good. We aren't robots that can't think, we don't have to do things because its the status quo. Other cities aren't Beijing.
You keep parroting the same refrain, but I don't see where you have said what is so good about it. I pay a management fee where I live, but I don't ride in the elevators as long as other people. I don't use public parks for taichi, I want my money to stop being used to subsidize them. I don't use medicine so plus don't waste my money testing the safety of drugs. I don't have kids, so plus let those who do pay for school construction themselves..
Its either that, or we analyze what things are in the public's good, not just is what is in the individual's good. The subway is for the public good, so we share the costs.
@ Squid:
CityWeekend is also reporting current fares are subsidized. This is backs up what I wrote in an earlier post. So if you want to declare the opposite, please start producing some reports/links, etc. It's high time people pay a greater proportion of what they use. It makes so much sense that countless other cities, within China and beyond, have it as their M.O.
For me personally it's not a problem and it would be good to have less people on the subway during rush hour.
But for the Chinese, they generally have pretty low wages so I'd expect they'd be unhappy about a rise in payment; especially if they have to travel far. If they were forced to use the buses during the rush hour time, then it would take a very long time for them to get to work or home in the evening. You know what the roads are like here!
Those who live far outside the metro area have been taking buses or shuttle vans to and fro for decades, and paying more for that trip than their Dong-DZM counterpart. Why should the subway fare setup be any different? Life is not so stark as you proffer, "poor forced to ride a bike" and all (I also take issue with how you continue to assert "poor" people live further down the subway line, but that's for another day...you should head to the 'burbs sometime, you will see some truly awesome villas and apartment complexes and quasi gated communities and golf courses and the like, but anyways). If you're so concerned about the less fortunate, why do you continue to avoid answering what programs you would like to transfer monies out of in order to pay for your increase in subsidy for covering subway operations? When I think of those less fortunate, I think of things like access to clean water, nutritious food, education and employment skills. I would like to keep the coffers for those types of things as full as possible instead of worrying about how John is going to get from Point A to Point B. He will get there like he did before the new subway station opened near his new apartment in 2012: via bus (maybe even the same one his parents took), his Corrolla, or on the back of his buddy's blue FAW flatbed.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
@Squid:
I will try and keep directly on point. I have a feeling you and I probably see quite eye-to-eye on general economic modeling and the role gov't-provided goods play in a society, but let me zero-in on the discussion at hand.
Yes, there are fixed operating costs which every rider, no matter the distance or number of lines used or body space they're taking up, should and do pay. But there are also costs whcih are greater based upon distance/duration one enjoys the service provided by the subway, and so should that not be dealt with in a more equitable manner to both the short- and long-distance rider and citizen of Beijing who never uses the subway but does appreciate the subsidies for other goods they use (oh, let's say roads!)?
If operating costs of the subway are going up, I believe it's fair to both the Dongsi and Changping rider alike to let those costs be the responsbility of those who directly use and benefit from the construction of a subway line, rather than say, take more monies from another public good to prop up the subway's operating budget. A hike that is handled by all is hardly fair to the hundreds of thousands of daily riders who go on a very short trip, and are paying exactly the same fare as those who commute greater distances. Why does a suburban bus rider pay, let's say ¥7 to get to his apartment, and not ¥1 like so many of the metro buses charge? Because for one, it requires more diesel to get to one's apartment in the 'burbs than the metro-based colleague, and as you've rightly pointed out, there are more users of the metro lines and thus, the costs are dealt with by a greater number of people. Metro buses go shorter routes, and when that person needs to transfer, they're given a discount. Add up the distance and it's likely very similar to that which Mr. Changping must traverse in order to get to his Dongsi place of work and home, and thus, the fares would probably come about quite even. But just like the bus that takes one to Changping, the energy costs for the subway to go there are greater than Dongsi to DZM, and also ridership numbers are lesser. From Bagou to Shuangjing, from Tiangongyuan to Olympic Park and all distances in between: pay for what you traverse is as equitable as it gets without dipping into the coffers of subsidies for other public goods and services.
Also, I think it wrong to assume that if subway fare is changed to distance-based, ridership will go down and the roads will become more clogged and society will be harmed and Mr. Changping will be unable to pay rent, or feed his kid, or milk his cow. Just like people take the subway for a variety of reasons, so too do those who do not take the subway. A fare hike or proposal thereof implies the operating budget is unable to support its costs with current and projectd revenues; I do not wish for people to pay more based upon where they live in relation to the 5th Ring Road or the Forbidden City or the CBD or some other arbitrary location, but instead merely the distance in which one stands inside a traveling subway car. I don't know the person's income or cost of living or equity accrued or debts incurred or anything else, but I do know how long they're taking up space in one of those cars and from that, I will charge them accordingly.
mtnerror,
So what do you want those who are less fortunate and are forced by financial circumstances to live far outside the city to do, ride a bike? Now you are want to compare a subway, which has a fixed route to a taxi ride? I think your analogies are lacking. Distance is a completely arbitary thing on a subway. Should someone pay more if they take a circuitous route on a subway, as opposed to taking the straightest line?
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
@chionke04:
No one is stating the current fare is not a tremendous steal of a deal -- indeed, see the image caption in which it's stated "the city's best deal." Well, I guess those who only take the subway for 2 stops might wonder why they're paying the same as someone who takes it 30 stops and a few transfers, but that discussion is already at hand. The questions are, is the current fare structure enabled for long-term successful subway operations? If costs are increasing, who should shoulder those increased costs? Should the subway mimic other modes of BJ transport (buses, taxis, etc.) and the same mode of transport operating in countless other cities by being distance-based, or should there continue to be one standard fare charged for all, no matter a granny riding for 2 minutes to the nearest wet market or the office worker with a 60-minute morning commute?
Your stance on bikes is a headscratcher, however. A bike problem is one Beijing wishes it had...there are cities the world over who would LOVE to have a bike problem. Bicyles don't require gov'ts to search for oil baron cronies and build-up of militaries to protect those interests, deal with inevitable oil spills which destroy environments and livelihoods, devote land & space to parking garages and fill up streets (and sidewalks) with idle autos, release pollutants into the air merely by using it, build endless roads and bridges and maintenance thereof, plague the citizenry with inactivity issues vs. exercise benefits from pedaling, etc.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
mtnerror,
I live in Gumao and I drive. So what I am utilizing is called empathy. I don't want those who live in the far reaches of Beijing, an almost necessity with the crazy real estate and rental costs, to shoulder a burden that is disproportionately difficult for them. Poorer people live in the outside of Beijing, that is a general fact. There is a reason property prices go down the further you get from the fourth ring.
When more people contribute, the costs for public services go down. If you are only using the subway to get from Dongzhimen to Dongsi, you are still using the trains and incurring costs, so if they are paying the same as the poor schmuck who has to ride out to Changping, the guy in Changping is going to get socked. Your solution is to make that guy subsidize all the short riders. I don't like that. The goal of the subway is to get as many people as possible using it, not to get these people out of the subway and back to using surface roads, Beijing doesn't need any more of that. If there needs to be a slight increase, then raise a slight increase across the board and everyone contributes a little more. Or better still, improve advertising and store rental fees inside the stations, to recoup more money. Its called a society. Market capitalism without government assistance is not a great model for helping a society. Its a model for letting some get rich, and letting others suffer. Take a good look at America, the money continues to get congested higher and higher up the food chain, while the middle class is disappearing, and the lower class is drowning. Trickle down turns out to be a lie.
The "haves" live in one place, the "have nots" in another. Beijing subway system is a great deal, and it needs to stay that way. Shanghai's subway is not a great deal.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
I would argue jobs related to subways are not "pointless." The subway serves the city well and provides an essential human need (transport) and does so incredibly efficiently. I don't know the subway's employment total, but I never see more than a few people manning the security line, queues, and ticketing office -- all which are used constantly and provide a necessary service (no matter how many machines are provided to overtake a former human function, I still see riders apparently in need of a human being more often than not). If there was an industry which was labor intensive (beyond building the underground tunnels and stations, which is more like one-and-done) and the local gov't wanted to improve unemployment figures, this would NOT be the industry. I see far less busy store clerks in privately-owned neighborhood grocery stores than I have ever seen manning the subway.
I do wonder, in response to mtnerror's comment about increase in staffing needs, if increased staffing might not be (a small) part of the motivation for this proposed fare hike... Unemployment IS a big problem here. Creating a few more pointless jobs to keep people employed, fed, quiet--always a good thing from the perspective of the Powers That Be, I think.
Personally, I think the 2 RMB is a great deal and it encourages people to use public transportation which I thought Beijing wanted in order to reduce the amount of vehicular pollutions.
To increase the fares from one side to the other. will have a slight increase for those who only use the subway for one or two stops, say these people purchase bikes. This only makes roads more congested as cars slow down with the increase of bike traffic.
I really do not have a unique solution other then build more lines and purchase more trains to shorten the waiting times ( if not already at a maximum).
What I really think of this is a method for many things. A Increase fund for the train lines. Second, People will purchase more of the vacant lots in inner Beijing. Third, this one is a little rough but I think plausible, People will purchase more cars to support the Chinese Suburbian lifestyle.
A Commuting lifestyle is not for all. I think once you learn to accept it I think it is a great way to get around Beijing and what really makes it notable is again the 2RMB per ride. Cheaper than gas and more efficent then driving in beijing.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
I'm hurt? Why are emotions all of a sudden pouring thru? Stay on topic, dear Squid. Read again. And stop skirting the question: supposing operational costs are increasing (perhaps due to collecting only ¥2 to pick up you and your dear brethren in Tongzhou), how would you like for that to be dealt with? There are only a couple of options which I have already outlined, and I'm looking forward to your answer.
Did you see me mention planes in my previous post? No, I did not, so get to it (the point still remains, however, in that planes charge distance-based fare).
The HK Tramway goes to a limited number of stops and operates on a small route of the island. Unless people live in a certain area, it's useless. Yes, grannies might use it to pick up their vegetables, and office workers to grab a lunch. I am not saying it's ONLY used by tourists, but I am saying its flat fee can't be used to compare with the MTR, nor bus service. The bus service which you and your brethren would use (because you would undoubtedly live in NT) is...get ready for it, distance-based!
I told you where i was getting the subsidy that is provided for each and every time you take the subway from Tongzhou, each and every time i pass your train on its way to Tongzhou. Yes, I'm well aware of Beijing's migrant population -- what made you think I was living under a rock? (Two of Beijing's issues are transporation and air quality, but to call them the biggest because perhaps that is what is most impactful to your life is a stretch. Public health, education, worker's rights, water sourcing and treatment, health costs...all of these could be argued to be on more Beijiner minds.)
Your refusal to believe that riders don't shoulder 100% of the costs doesn't mean it's so. You have to remember all of the associated costs with operating a subway...depot and inventory costs, repairmen, continuous cleaning of the train cars and stations, testing and monitoring and equipment of the lines and signals, ticket sales, ticket machines and their upkeep, signage, secruity personnel, training, energy (to run the trains, avoid the cars and stations from being pitch black, heat in winter and a/c in summer), drivers and platform staff, etc. If any one or several of these and their associated costs increase, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET THE MONEY FROM? INCREASED SUBSIDIES, BASE FARE RATE HIKE, OR DISTANCE-BASED FARE?
mtnerror,
You made a bunch of silly analogies, and you seem to be hurt that someone called you out on them. Comparing a plane ride to different cities to a subway ride is just plain stupid, sorry. You also make silly claims when you say that the Hong Kong trams are mostly used for tourists. Are you sure you have been to Wanchai? The trams are used by office workers and old ladies going to the market. And where are you getting this 30% subsidy needed to keep the subways operational?
In India they managed to make their subways "profitable" on the very first day of operation, by using the land nearby for rentals and advertising.
Finally, of course other cities charge based on distance, cities like Chicago and Osaka, and even Shanghai. But does that mean this is the best formula for Beijing just because that is what these other cities are doing? It certainly doesn't. Beijing has a bad traffic problem, one of the worst in the world. It also has some of the worst air. Combine those two and you have a mess. So yes, a rational person can have an opinion about what the priority for a subway system should be-don't you know they are asking for public comments? If making money should be the first priority, then go ahead, sock it to the poor suckers who can't aford to live in CBD. I will quite rightly assume that those who live outside the city do so for the less expensive housing costs. Did you know Beijing has a fair number of migrant workers, has anyone ever mentioned that to you?
The Beijing government generates plenty of money in a whole host of industries. But Beijing's biggest challenge is transportation and air quality, that is pretty obvious, even to a simple forum poster. The subway doesn't neccessarily need to be another one of those avenues for more revenue.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Wow, this was a short pick-up and it generated this many comments. I'll accept the map may be slightly out of date, but how the hell did you notice?
Anyway, I'm glad this was informative and thought-provoking. The subway is a great way to travel and anything that improves it is a bonus for Beijing residents.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
I can only imagine the staffing needs for such a new procees, which would need to be dealt with 12x/yr multiplied by the number of millions of riders in scope -- you have to remember not much is handled thru the mail here. No matter distance-based fare or extra charge during rush hour, both could be handled the same way current IC cards are swiped. And it would never be a good idea to charge extra during rush hour for those who take mass transit for work/school.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
charging more during the time adults are trying to get to their jobs and students to their schools is taking a huge whack at a heck of a lot of people in society who already fave quite a few pressures. In short, they are your tax base and future tax base: do not piss them off by having a rush hour fare.
Perhaps this could be overcome by offering a monthly commuter card that can be purchased at a discount.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
Squid, Yes, I have ridden public transport in both cities which you mentioned, and therefore am calling you out. One can't compare HK MTR with HK Tramways. The former is largely used by locals to get around the city, the latter largely by tourists. It would be the same in SF with the trolley and BART. Two completely different modes of transport for two completely different types of travelers. In that light, my comparison of BJ Subway rate formulation and other modes of transportion still seems to hold water. MTR uses distance-based fare. China Railways uses distance-based fare. Certain bus lines within the metro use distance-based fares (that's why you'll notice a meter next to the exit door). Our taxis too.
In city after city, country after country, passengers pay distance-based fare. Nanjing, Dalian, Shanghai, Osaka, Chicago...the list goes on and on -- for underground transport, light-rail, tolls, phone connections, etc. Do not assume people live in the BJ 'burbs because they can't afford it -- people live all over this city for a variety of reasons. Proximity to work, liking of a particular school, apartment design, natuarl scenary, shopping or store brand, proximity to major thoroughfares, availability of farmland, rental price, etc.
The part about subsidies can't be denied. You can check Wiki and the corresponding article (in Chinese) which supports the statement I made, in that the current fare is possible due to subsidies. I would argue a roughly 33% subsidy is considerable (i.e., if it stopped tomorrow, BJ Subway operations would shortly cease if rider-paid fare was not immediately increased). As far as the actual building of the lines, of course the people's money is used for that, too -- but they are not just up-front subsidies, my friend. Few municipal gov'ts would NOT be contributing taxpayer monies to such projects. There are one-time subsidies and ongoing subsidies, the same when gov'ts go to build roads, water mains, and the like. Also, it's not for me to say what are MTR's and BJ Subway's priorities, respectively. You are suggesting if BJ adopted the same pricing scheme used in other cities on the Mainlaind with similar cost of living and overheard figures, the operation would either be a "profit center" or no one from beyond X Ring Road would be able to come to the city, neither of which I am buying.
If the 2 operators of BJ Subway are coming to the municipal gov't and stating the current structure to continue their operating budget is unsustainable, the additional costs must shouldered by someone -- either riders or increase of subsidies. If not shouldered by the riders, which public programs would you like to take monies from to neutralize the deficit? And who are you to judge whether the current system is working just fine or not? Do you know the operating budgets and forecasted budgets and costs of our city's 2 lovely subway operators? 
Furthermore, I would add that changing to a distance fee is only going to hurt those most who can least afford it. The people who live and need to travel further away from the city center, do so because in general they can not afford to live in the more expensive central areas of the city. If you have to travel to tongzhou, you probably live there because you can not afford to live in Guomao.
And making the subway more expensive now, when Beijing is alreay in a traffic congestion mess sounds like just complete foolishness. This is pretty obvious-and with the system working fine the way it is now, why try to break it by fixing it?
mtnerror,
Sorry, but I don't buy your analogies about planes and bus fares. Planes only stop at one place, its not like you can hop on and hop off anywhere along the way. Have you ever ridden street trams in cities like San Francisco or Hong Kong? You jump on and and get off anywhere you want, for one price. No one is subsidizing others riders, they simply charge a fee which allows them enough revenue to run the service-same for the subway.
I also don't agree with you that the subway is highly subsidized by tax dollars. The government pays for the intial construction of the subways-because they are aware of the benefits to the city, in terms of less pollution, less traffic, less wear on the infrastructure. But in a city like Beijing, where there is plenty of population using the trains, they can become self sustaning very quickly, and there is no need for public subsidies. Furthermore, it is certainly a much better model to keep the cost of the subway as low as possible for a city in such dire need as Beijing, rather that use a model like Hong Kongs which uses its MTR system as a profit center. Hong Kong people for the most part live a higher standard of living, and thus can more afford to use the transport, but Beijing's priority is not to make more money from the subways, its to relieve the road burden.
The bottom line is, if they go to a distance scale, it is going to cost more money for everyone, you can guarantee that. Do you really think they are going to charge less than two yuan for most distances? No chance.
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
@admin: What would make it hairy? It was done before in this city, then reneged but not because of complicated fare scheduling. It can once again be done here and is being done in a straightforward manner in countless other cities. If other modes of transit are also adjusted during peak hours, then OK. But if not, then it's antithetical to charge more for using mass transit at precisely the hours for which the infrastracture was built in mind for. The intervals at which the trains operate during peak hours could be shortened, but charging more during the time adults are trying to get to their jobs and students to their schools is taking a huge whack at a heck of a lot of people in society who already fave quite a few pressures. In short, they are your tax base and future tax base: do not piss them off by having a rush hour fare. Distance-based fare is hard to argue against.
On another note, it would be great if there could be a once-and-for-all decision by the two subway operators to agree to signage standards. One operator lists the next station with the direction arrow of the train, the other the terminus. It's a complicated mess for those who encounter a particular line for the first few times, or visitors in general. Also, signage and arrows could be more widespread and improved overall at ton of stations, escalators fixed (to have anything at Guomao in the heart of the CBD be out for so long is incomprehensible) and improved walkway and tunnel flow.
though i can see it being hairy from a technological point of view, why not charge more from 7am-9am and 5pm-7pm, like make it 4 kuai and less on the off hours?
Actually I find the subway bearable most of the other times of the day, and a moderate hike might be enough to alter behavior
Re: Fare Hikes May Lie Ahead for Subway Riders
@squid:
What I have proposed is in line with other modes of transportation and is in line with "pay for what you use". If I want to take the tollway, I pay based on type of vehicle and distance -- it is not a flat fee. Same goes for taxis and some bus lines, train tickets and generally, planes. The train ticket price is not the same for BJ-Nanjing as BJ-Shanghai, nor should it be. Subways have to go to a certain terminus, in which there is an apparatus for which the cars can be used to go the opposite direction, so no matter there are riders going to the terminus or not, it's a required destination for the subway cars. If I'm only using the infrascture for 2 stops, why should someone using it for 13 stops get to pay the same?
Not all bus lines charge the same fare nor a flat fee (as noted in my original comments) so when you state "buses charge one fare," that's not accurate. Short distance subway rides will likely drop in price instead of today's flate fare, so stating a change in how fares are calculated resulting in it being more expensive for the rider is likely inaccurate.
To answer your question of who benefits, we all do. Right now subway operations are heavily subsidized. Indeed, part of our taxes go towards all forms of public transit, even if you don't use it. This will and should continue, but not all fare increases should be paid for by subsidies -- at some point in time, I need to get the user of the infrastructure to pitch in more, too. If more of your taxes are devoted to subways and public transit at large, it means less is available for other things (education, public health, etc.).
In general, I'm in favor of the majority of the cost being shouldered by the receipient of the good or service. I would not rest the counter-argument on a possibly confusing ticketing process, as mostly locals use the subway and it will only take a small time for them to get used to the new pricing schemes (and most are using IC cards so there won't be any added confusion, anyways...after scanning the card at the destinations turnstyle, the meter would deduct the corresponding amount). For visitors and tourists, they will see the same ticketing scheme as countless other cities around the world use -- if our visitors in SH and Chicago and Paris can figure it out, so can those who visit BJ. Pick the destination, tap the screen to confirm, and the fare will be determined by the machine without added hassle to the traveler. If you happen to change your schedule/mind and need to go to a subway station further away, then pay the difference upon arrival of your new final destination. The turnstyles are already manned so no new costs associated there. Sure, lines may result in this but what % of those who exit at that particular moment are going to need to need fare adjustment?
Mtnerror,
When you say the fare for the subway "should" be distance based, why is that? Who benefits from that? The trains still travel the route, regardelss how far you go on them. Buses charge one fare no matter where you get off.
Furthermore, making all stops different prices means that buying tickets is going to be even more troublesome then now, and everytime someone buys the wrong ticket, there will be lines to fix it at the exit.
So it is more troublesome for everyone, more expensive when the government should be encouraging more subway use, and serving no benefit to reducing city traffic. A lose-lose situation all around. You want it to be like shanghais?-riding subways there can get pretty expensive.
That subway map looks outdated by 2+ years. And yes, fare system should be distance-based, just like several of the bus lines and all taxis already are. The powers-that-be should also see what demand would be for extended operating hours, to say 02:00, and attempt to provide more hours of operation. Several of the bus and subway lines stop around 23:00 which is far too early for a city with employmees and fun-seekers needing more reasonable ways of getting around town. It can be tough to find a taxi in many pockets of the city, even some of the busiest ones, at 22:00 in this town.