Photo via Trenvista.

Yesterday an injunction presented by auditor Facundo Del Gaiso was upheld effectively putting the Subte ride price increases scheduled to come into effect today on hold. So good news to commuters: the cost of your underground ride will not be going up from AR $4.50 to AR $7.50 today. But obviously, the Buenos Aires City Government has already warned it will appeal the decision.

In his injunction request, Del Gaiso argued these increases would have seen users and the City Government pay for the Subte’s security, maintenance and equipment expenses when in reality the Subte company should be the one paying for all of that.

“Subte prices are absolutely inflated. In my opinion, the fare should be around AR $6. We also put into question the amount of money destined to subsidize the Subte company, as it has grown exponentially since 2012 and reached AR $2.1 billion in 2016,” Del Gaiso told Infobae yesterday.

On its end, the City government has already come out to say it will appeal the decision because it “puts users and the service’s quality at risk.” In an interview with Radio Belgrano, Juan Pablo Piccardo, the head of the City’s Department in charge of the Subte, said that the City administration needs to increase prices to invest in infrastructure: “We are making improvements, but if we don’t increase prices, we’ll be creating a complicated situation. I’m not saying we are happy to do it, but today everyone admits that AR $4.50 is a really low fare take the Subte,” he said.

Piccardo went on to say that this is not the first time the “technical fare” has increased: “The last one was two years ago, we have already explained that to the judge. It’s not true that [the increase] hasn’t been calculated right or has a methodology problem,” he said.

Nonetheless, the increases will be on standby until the City Court makes a final decision. The hike has been postponed multiple times since it was announced in May. It was initially set to take place on June 1st, but was postponed after a judge declared that the initial date did not respect “transparency or the public’s access to information.”