MTA considers hiking fares for buses, trains From Times Staff and Wire Reports March 23, 2007
Bus and commuter train fares would go up significantly under hikes proposed Thursday by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
To deal with a projected $1-billion budget deficit, transit officials are proposing a fare increase effective July 1, and a second increase Jan. 1, 2009.
The regular cash fare for bus and rail lines would remain $1.25 until 2009, when it would increase to $2. Day passes would increase from $3 to $5 in July, and to $8 by 2009. The semi-monthly pass would be eliminated, and monthly passes, currently $52, would increase to $75 in July and $120 by January 2009.
---
The Transit Coalition should get on this before the B-R-Uknowho does.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,024 Location: Carson
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #1 on Mar 24, 2007, 12:13am »
I know that we're overdue for an increase, but WOW! I think that most people are going to expect much more frequent and better service at those prices. I can see the MTA posibly losing >1/3 of its ridership with that 2nd increase. They should take it a little slower IMO.
$120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #2 on Mar 24, 2007, 12:16am »
Here is a little back story on this. Gloria Molina gave internal documents to the BRU folks that weren't public. At first the Board was going to meet on this on April 23, but after the BRU demonstration in the Board Room, some Board Members decided to hold the hearings and action on another day. Just like all Board Actions, Metro hears the proposals, hears the public and discusses the matter and makes a decision.
Roger Snoble was told in his performance review that he had to solve the Structural Deficit NOW. So, the proposal that has been issued is a "No Service Cut" version. Some of the alternatives that have been floating around include 10% to 25% service cuts.
With a $1 Billion deficit and the lack of ability to run either the East L.A. Gold Line or the Expo Line, some type of action had to be taken.
Will there be some type of political compromise? Maybe. But, with the lack of understanding of basic economics from our elected officials, I am sure something weird may be enacted.
As much as many are used to almost free transit, that $75 works out to $3.40 / workday as compared to the new $5 daypass.
Even the $120 monthly pass works out to $5.45 / workday as compared to the new $8 daypass and the $2 base fare.
Anyway you look at it, you can still pay $3.25 for a gallon of gas. Many easily pay $60 / week or more for gas, so in perspective the increase while steep, isn't much compared when you look at everything else.
I see it being a choice between cutting of more service and a lot of cutting versus paying $ .40 for every $1 of service, while the subsidy is $ .60 out of every $1 you pay. Right now riders only pay $ .24 out of every $1, so the ride is almost free.
Is this a bad thing? Well, the 25% service reduction scenario is a lot worse and will really kill transit.
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #5 on Mar 24, 2007, 2:22am »
This is long overdue...I fully support it! Unless we can get the state (*cough Arnold *cough) to give the MTA more money or to raise taxes, this is what we HAVE to do. Finally, the MTA is being bold on this. We have to be real. Remember, gas prices for private automobiles and MTA BUSES was $1.80 back in '03, and today its $3.25 for private automobile and MTA BUSES. Shouldn't the MTA deserve to increase its fares to account for increased gas prices?
Rather than drive, ride! Ride Metro Rail, Metro bus, bicycle, vanpool, carpool, motorcycle!
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 254 Location: Near Metro Rapid 761 "station"
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #6 on Mar 24, 2007, 3:34am »
Quote:
This is long overdue...I fully support it! Unless we can get the state (*cough Arnold *cough) to give the MTA more money or to raise taxes, this is what we HAVE to do. Finally, the MTA is being bold on this. We have to be real. Remember, gas prices for private automobiles and MTA BUSES was $1.80 back in '03, and today its $3.25 for private automobile and MTA BUSES. Shouldn't the MTA deserve to increase its fares to account for increased gas prices?
Metro buses never used conventional gasoline, ever. They were either diesel in the old days or compressed natural gasoline today.
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #7 on Mar 24, 2007, 7:59am »
While I don't know if $120/month is the right price, we have to choose one: better service or higher prices. I truly believe that the federal and state governments need to be more consistent in their subsidies of freeway/road transportation and mass transit, and even more urgently we need to have businesses encourage and subsidize transit for their employees, but I don't believe this sort of price increase is unrealistic.
As a percentage of income, transit prices will still be a great bargain compared to the amount people pay for automobile-based transportation. Perhaps the real problem is that for so many years prices did not go up that this catch up measure appears draconian.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,024 Location: Carson
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #8 on Mar 24, 2007, 8:47am »
Quote:
Quote:
How many years is that $1 billion dollar deficit spread over?
We're about to spend several billion dollars on a tunnel under South Pasadena for the 710. When can we expect to see that project turn a profit?
Ummm... Shawn, I think that 1 Billion $ shortfall is for this fiscal year alone.
Cutting service does not put a dent into this deficit. Only makes it worse by discouraging transit use in the long run.
Then I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. Everything that I have seen shows a much smaller deficit than that. Check out the LA Times article below.
MTA fare hike plan is opposed by riders By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer March 24, 2007
Five months after a federal consent decree expired, Los Angeles County transit officials Friday unveiled a plan that would raise bus and rail fares to cover an expected $100-million deficit.
The proposal, which would push the price of a regular monthly pass as high as $120, has drawn fire from bus rider advocates. They want fares reduced instead.
"There is no middle ground," said Manuel Criollo, a spokesman for the Bus Riders Union, which sued the transit agency the last time it tried to increase fares, in 1994. "Our people cannot afford another cent."
But Roger Snoble, chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the increase is necessary and, in fact, overdue. "We don't have enough money to pay for what we operate," he said, advocating that passengers pay more of the agency's operating costs. Without an increase, he predicted the deficit could grow to $1.8 billion over the next decade.
Snoble proposed increasing the standard $1.25 cash fare to $2, beginning Jan. 1, 2009.
Day passes, which now cost $3, would increase to $5 in July and to $8 by 2009. Monthly passes, now $52, would cost $75 in July and $120 by January 2009.
A public hearing must be held before the MTA's 13-member board approves any rate hike. A date has not yet been set.
Passengers, on average, pay 58 cents per ride, an MTA calculation based on the larger number of riders who use monthly and other discounted passes. Snoble estimates that next year it will cost $2.50 per ride to operate the buses and trains.
In recent months, ridership has increased, gently boosting revenue, he said. The MTA also is preparing to cut $10 million in services as part of its semiannual service adjustment.
Last year, the transit agency balanced its operating budget by cutting administrative costs and increasing revenue by selling more advertising on buses and in subway stations.
Fares have increased little, if any, since 1994, when the Bus Riders Union sued the MTA to improve bus service. In fact, monthly passes for students in kindergarten through 12th grade are $2 lower today than in 1982, when they cost $22.
Under the federal court order, the agency was limited in how much more it could charge riders. The MTA did not raise fares during that 10-year period. The decree expired in October.
Instead of raising rates, the Bus Riders Union wants transit officials to lower fares to 50 cents to attract more riders. The group also wants $42 monthly passes.
$120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #9 on Mar 24, 2007, 12:15pm »
I will attempt to clarify a few things about the fare adjustments, but you will also have to look at some charts and do some reading to bring yourself up to speed.
The message has been going out to the Metro Directors for the last 4 years that fares need to gradually go up. But, all said, those Directors have not ready for the message, although the history is well documented.
Look at our TTC Campaign to Increase Fares to preserve and enhance service. We have plenty of charts and graphs to illustrate how Metro operates against other big city peers and the Metro Structural Deficit Powerpoint which clearly explains why action must be taken immediately.
Yes, there are two figures $100 million and $1.8 billion. Those are shortfall figures over 1 year and 10 years. Either way, if the prices aren't adjusted, you are looking at looping off up to 25% of the bus service and NOT running Expo and East LA Gold Lines, as the money is not there.
After all is said and done, Metro Fare Box Recovery is still going to legally subsidize bus fares as is policy at $ .60 Metro for every $ .40 you pay.
I hope this clears things up. If not, keep shooting questions. Thanks!
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #10 on Mar 24, 2007, 12:42pm »
Think of it this way, by 2009, gasoline pump prices could easily surpass $ 5.00 / gallon in California whenever the oil market gets hot, or a major refinery in California mysteriously "goes offline".
It will be a tradeoff between the price of gas and the cost of a ticket. Just like it is now a $3.00 daypass is by far cheaper than the $3.18 you pay for a gallon at the pump.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 244 Location: Vermont/Santa Monica Station
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #11 on Mar 24, 2007, 2:03pm »
Quote:
Think of it this way, by 2009, gasoline pump prices could easily surpass $ 5.00 / gallon in California whenever the oil market gets hot, or a major refinery in California mysteriously "goes offline".
But if it doesn't, and the price of transit really does appear higher than gas. then 1) Many transit-by-choice people would leave the system in droves. 2) Many transit-dependent will not be able to afford to buy a monthly pass. The result is an system that NOBODY rides.
Increases are a fact of life and the reality of inflation. But to increase the price of a monthly pass OVER 100% IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS is just nuts. Weren't the passes in the $20-something range back in the '80s?
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #12 on Mar 24, 2007, 2:39pm »
Quote:
But if it doesn't, and the price of transit really does appear higher than gas. then 1) Many transit-by-choice people would leave the system in droves. 2) Many transit-dependent will not be able to afford to buy a monthly pass. The result is an system that NOBODY rides.
Increases are a fact of life and the reality of inflation. But to increase the price of a monthly pass OVER 100% IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS is just nuts. Weren't the passes in the $20-something range back in the '80s?
What's the chances gas is going to significantly decrease? Have you seen prices decrease back to '02 levels, or what about '99 levels? History shows prices will increase. I believe it's a true statement to say gas prices will rise and will not decrease. Sure, they'll be 15 or 20 cent decreases once in a while, but it'll shoot up again. The average will continue to climb.
BTW, no matter what type of gas a bus uses, they were subjected to the same price shocks as private automobile users were. Thus, its appropriate the MTA factors this into their new cost analysis.
How much is the London tube on a daily basis? Like $14 (when converted to USD). And people still use that. As long as the MTA service is efficient and convenient, people will use it. This increase will help attain that objective. And, we don't always need to cater to the "transit-dependent", we should make this an equal system for all. No matter if you make $160k or $16k, everybody should have the right to an efficient system. It seems like in LA public transportation is associated w/ poor people and we always have to see their needs first and not the general public. Price increase is tough, we all have to deal with it. I'd rather see a continued service increase of the MTA and expansion, and this price increase is fully justified.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 244 Location: Vermont/Santa Monica Station
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #13 on Mar 24, 2007, 6:29pm »
Quote:
It seems like in LA public transportation is associated w/ poor people and we always have to see their needs first and not the general public. Price increase is tough, we all have to deal with it. I'd rather see a continued service increase of the MTA and expansion, and this price increase is fully justified.
Yes, but if it's too expensive for the poor to ride, then what incentive will there be for the transit-by-choice to ride? You can expand the system all you want, if it costs way too much then no one, neither poor nor middle class, will want to ride it.
I'm not against fare increases per se, but an over-100% increase in less than two years is unfathomable. Why not raise the monthly pass $10 every two years? Or $5 every year?
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #14 on Mar 25, 2007, 6:54pm »
I think the problem here is that we're making up for so much lost for a ridiculously-long period of time. Realistically, we're decades behind in our fares; also realistically, if we do too much too fast then we might hurt ridership because of the perceived inordinately-steep rise in fares. Furthermore, this does give political ammunition for the BRU.
Perhaps a more scaled increase of $10/month each year, or every 6 months, is needed for the next few years...but the goal of $120/month for those who regularly use mass transit is absolutely appropriate for a region with a cost of living like ours.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 383 Location: Los Angeles
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #15 on Mar 25, 2007, 8:38pm »
The increase is a lot and I'm sure it will be negotiated down as it goes on. I agree it is largely necessary b/c of not raising fares for so many years and it is far cheaper than anything else in the US.
Hopefully, local officials can make this an issue of state (spill-over) and federal funding, which it largely is. Arnold is known as an environmentalist nowadays, but slashes public transit every chance he gets, which is totally inconsistent with this view. He seems to get away with it with no consequences though. That needs to change.
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #16 on Mar 28, 2007, 12:53pm »
Why does 'raising fares' have to be a racial issue? Local media outlets are using words such as "bus riders" or "transit-dependent" will be forced to this new fare hike? What about middle-class people or "train riders", we ride the Metro as well! If talks of fare hikes happened in Chicago or NY, I'm sure the term used would be "commuters", not dividing people by races. It's sad that our transit system is associated with poor people, and b/c a fare increase is being discussed, apparently they're the only one's affected. I know a fare increase will hurt the poor more than the middle class, but this should be a transportation cost issue, not a racial issue.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 244 Location: Vermont/Santa Monica Station
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #17 on Mar 28, 2007, 1:40pm »
Quote:
Why does 'raising fares' have to be a racial issue? Local media outlets are using words such as "bus riders" or "transit-dependent" will be forced to this new fare hike? What about middle-class people or "train riders", we ride the Metro as well! If talks of fare hikes happened in Chicago or NY, I'm sure the term used would be "commuters", not dividing people by races. It's sad that our transit system is associated with poor people, and b/c a fare increase is being discussed, apparently they're the only one's affected. I know a fare increase will hurt the poor more than the middle class, but this should be a transportation cost issue, not a racial issue.
To increase the monthly pass by more than 100% in less than two years will drive away middle-class riders, who only look at the visible costs of driving (gas only). They will not be impacted like lower income, transit-dependent riders would, but their non-use of the transit system will increase traffic and pollution.
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 144 Location: Princeton, NJ
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #20 on Apr 12, 2007, 3:22am »
So I definitely agree that fares need to be raised significantly. The $2 dollar base fare is great. The day pass could be a little bit cheaper at 6 dollars or so but the monthly pass fare (including reduced monthly passes) is beyond ridiculous. New York charges 76 dollars for its monthly pass and it has the best farebox recovery in the country. Why do we need to charge 120 dollars when we'd be making 60% farebox recovery, which is I think 3 times what we get now. And I understand we don't wan't to just mindlessly copy New York then fine charge $85 or something. The one that really kills me though is the 70 something dollar senior pass. Are you f---ing kidding me? Whatever percentage of the base fare the senior fare is should be the percentage of the monthly pass that the senior monthly pass is. say the regular monthly pass costs 75 then the senior pass should cost 27. that is totally reasonable.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 386 Location: Leimert Park, CA
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #22 on Apr 15, 2007, 10:19pm »
For some reason market principles only seem to be discussed in these debates when Metro is to benefit. What about discussing market principles from a consumer standpoint?
The bottom line is our Metro system isn't worth the second phase fares! You can charge $76 a month for a monthly pass in NYC (still almost $50 less than Metro’s proposing) because it is a transit system that allows users to live in the Big Apple without a car AND get around the city FASTER than the automobile. It's also a system with riders that have a higher average median income than Los Angeles – higher by multiples!!!
Some Metro buses take over 2 hours to travel 13 miles. That's not competitive with the automobile. For most, that's not a product worth paying a gallon of gas to use. And if these steep increases come with deep service cuts it’s simply illogical to assume that anyone who has a reasonable alternative will still take Metro without reservation.
The result of a steep fair increase is to place a large financial burden on people who have no choice but to take Metro. And ultimately they’ll simply use the system less. A single mother with two kids would see her transportation costs increase almost $150 a month. That may not be a big deal to a paralegal in Beverly Hills, but it is to a part-time Wal-Mart clerk, and last I looked our system had a lot more Wal-Mart clerks on it than it had paralegals.
And thank you Bart for confirming my suspicion that the need to expeditiously get the deficit under control is to operate the Eastside Extension and Expo Line. What another great example of our penny-wise and pound-foolish policies. We need to make the capital investment NOW to build lines that directly serve major destinations (Ventura subway NOT Orange Line LRT conversion) and operate at speeds fast enough to attract choice riders and with the capacity to comfortably move them, so these large taxpayer investments end up paying for themselves instead of draining Metro's operating budget (a la Pasadena Gold).
Finally, if we’re going to have such a high day pass, we have to bring the transfers back - possibly only to TAP card users. ALL other American transit agencies that have high day passes have transfers.
« Last Edit: Apr 15, 2007, 10:23pm by damiengoodmon »
"If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves."
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 244 Location: Vermont/Santa Monica Station
Re: $120 FOR A MONTHLY PASS?!?!?!? « Reply #24 on Apr 16, 2007, 12:59am »
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Metro Rail only consumes 15% of Metro's total budget. So cutting costs by cutting rail service doesn't make any sense, does it ?
The BRU wants to cut rail CONSTRUCTION. Somehow they refuse to recognize the fact that Metro's construction and operating budgets are not one in the same.
![[Home]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.wgn.net/~elson/images/pimpmyride.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u157/Blueline_express/IMG_0760-avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/Pictures/bartreed_100px.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/avatars/bunny.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/nationaltc/Pics/KennethAlpern.gif "[avatar]")
![[aim]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")