Metrolink Proposed Fare Hikes

[nickv]

Metrolink Board proposes increases in Group Travel Program fare



02/26/2008

At its meeting of February 22, 2008, the Metrolink Board of Directors approved a public outreach program to request input on a proposed increase in fares for group travel. Metrolink’s Group Travel Program has been in place since 2000 and currently offers a discounted fare of $7.00 for a round trip ticket anywhere on the system for groups of 10 or more. The proposed changes to the program are as follows:

Increase the discounted Group Travel fare for a round trip ticket from $7.00 to $10.00 beginning July 1, 2008
Increase the minimum number in a group to qualify for the discounted fare from 10 to 15 beginning July 1, 2008
Index future increases in the Group Travel fare to system-wide fare change proposals but only increase the fare when the cumulative total of increases is equal to or greater than $1.00.
Metrolink would like to hear from you about this proposal. Please send us your comments by e-mail to [e-mail], by fax to [phone], Attn: Group Fares or by regular mail to Metrolink, Attn: Group Fares, 700 South Flower Street, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. The Metrolink Board of Directors will receive a compilation of all comments received and a public hearing will be held by the Board at its meeting on April 25, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Comments can also be submitted by using our online comment form by clicking HERE.

[Mac]

With oil prices so high (and it looks as though as its not gonna be a big drop any time soon), have they thought of electrification? They probably don't have the money right now, but diesel is gonna cost them a lot.

[nickv]

RE: Metrolink Proposed Service Reductions + Fare Hike

The Metrolink Web page that had the information on the proposed fare hikes and possible service reductions was changed. It now looks like only the group travel fare will have a proposed fare increase now according to Metrolink's Web site with no service reductions, but I'll keep everyone posted should individual fare hikes or service cuts do get proposed.

Most of you already know about this, but I was passing a gas station today and diesel gas broke the $4.00 mark at $4.10 / gal. Regular unleaded was at $3.57 / gal. Oil was at 106.54 / barrel at the time of this post.

[nickv]

3/14/2008 Edit:
Mr Reed informed the board that Metrolink has NOT announced a reduction in service. I did post something that someone on the Metrolink staff side messed up and posted on the Metrolink website. But, then Metrolink retracted the information. Sorry for any confusion!

.........................

Metrolink Board proposes increases in regular and Group Travel Program
fares
03/10/2008 - Metrolink News Releases




In 2007, Metrolink’s Board of Directors approved a three-year program of annual system-wide average fare adjustments of 3.5% that would take effect on July 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009 to keep pace with higher costs to operate commuter train service.

Because of the escalating cost of diesel fuel, scheduled increases in costs for operating services contracts and new start-up costs related to the arrival of additional passenger cars in 2009, the Board is considering a fare increase of up to 7.5%, instead of the previously approved 3.5% and potential reductions in service to take effect on July 1, 2008.

The Metrolink Board is also considering changes to the Group Travel Program. The proposed changes to the program are as follows:

Increase the discounted Group Travel fare for a round trip ticket from $7.00 to $10.00 beginning July 1, 2008
Increase the minimum number in a group to qualify for the discounted fare from 10 to 15 beginning July 1, 2008
Index future increases in the Group Travel fare to system-wide fare change proposals but only increase the fare when the cumulative total of increases is equal to or greater than $1.00.

You can comment about these proposals in several ways:

Attend the public hearing
E-mail to [e-mail]
Fax comments to [phone]
Mail comments to Metrolink Fares, 700 S. Flower Street, 26th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017
The Metrolink Board of Directors will receive a compilation of all comments received and a public hearing will be held by the Board at its meeting on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 10:00 am to be held at the Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) San Bernardino Conference Room located at 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California.

Comments can also be submitted by using our online comment form by clicking HERE.

[spokker]

There's also a survey about the EZPass feature of Metrolink tickets. I'm guessing they want to put a stop to that as well.

Well, it was fun riding Metrolink while it lasted.

[nickv]

There's also a survey about the EZPass feature of Metrolink tickets. I'm guessing they want to put a stop to that as well.

Well, it was fun riding Metrolink while it lasted.

I cannot find any reference to this on Metrolink's Web site. Can you please post a link to where you got this information so I can investigate it further. I believe this is something that needs to be brought to attention if this is a real proposal.

I also think that Metrolink is in a jam with the EZ Pass agreement due to Metro's fare gate project.

See this board thread to see why.

[Transit Coalition]

spokker said:

There's also a survey about the EZ Pass feature of Metrolink tickets. I'm guessing they want to put a stop to that as well.

Well, it was fun riding Metrolink while it lasted.

This is a classic example of misinformation. Yes, Metrolink is taking a survey. It is not a "Public Survey", but one targeted to members of the Metrolink Riders Panel, which does Market Research on rider needs and expectations.

Dear Metrolink Rider Panel Member:

You are receiving this email because you asked to participate in the Metrolink Rider Poll.

In the near future there may be important changes to the way you use your Metrolink pass or ticket. Metrolink invites you to take part in a brief survey that will help us understand how riders will be effected by the policy changes that are under consideration.

We value your privacy, so as always, your responses will remain strictly confidential. No one will ever call or email you in a sales capacity, and we will never share your personal information with a third party.

Your comments will be extremely valuable!

Thank you,
Henning Eichler (Metrolink Market Research Manager)
Amelia Caine (Godbe Research)

The board poster is referring to one of the survey questions: There is a possibility that Metrolink passes and tickets may no longer be accepted for travel on non-Metrolink buses and trains. This policy change would require Metrolink riders to pay a separate fare for using non-Metrolink transit services. How would this additional expense effect the likelihood that you would ride Metrolink?

with the following possible answers:
No longer ride Metrolink
Much less likely to ride Metrolink
Somewhat less likely to ride Metrolink
No effect
Don’t know / Not applicable

The next question:
An alternative policy change would maintain the free transfers, but would require Metrolink riders to obtain a separate transfer ticket, at no cost, at the Metrolink station. How would this requirement for a separate ticket effect the likelihood that you would ride Metrolink?

with the following possible answers:
No longer ride Metrolink
Much less likely to ride Metrolink
Somewhat less likely to ride Metrolink
No effect
Don’t know / Not applicable

Metrolink really wants to get an understanding of how the transit system integrates and how Metrolink riders use other bus or rail systems. Henning Eichler, the Metrolink Market Research Manager runs a quality operation, with great information.

It's nice to have an opinion, but base it on facts. Having attended the Metrolink meeting where this issue was raised, you'd find that there is an abundance of caution before Metrolink makes any type of change that could affect ridership. I did testify to the need of just one "Smart Card" that would be used on the bus and rail system.

Metrolink runs in 6 counties and would have to completely revamp their fare collection to join with Metro. Then the 5 member counties of Metrolink would have to invest millions in a new fare collection system.

[spokker]

admin said:

It's nice to have an opinion, but base it on facts.

When I'm reading about service reductions and fare hikes and then I get an email asking me to take a survey on whether or not I care if they got rid of the EZPass feature on Metrolink tickets, excuse me if I become a little cynical about the whole thing.

Reduction in service? I thought we were well on our way to 30 minute headways on the OC Line? Whatever happened to that blue sky nonsense?

[spokker]

nickv said:

I also think that Metrolink is in a jam with the EZ Pass agreement due to Metro's fare gate project.

The fare gates are insane. This isn't Tokyo for goodness sakes. Metro should probably create a rail system worth riding before having the gonads to burden us with useless fare gates.

[Transit Coalition]

spokker said:

admin said:

It's nice to have an opinion, but base it on facts.

When I'm reading about service reductions and fare hikes and then I get an email asking me to take a survey on whether or not I care if they got rid of the EZ Pass feature on Metrolink tickets, excuse me if I become a little cynical about the whole thing.

OK, first, Metro is undergoing a bus service reduction project which is undergoing public hearings. You as a member of the public had a chance to come out and to submit your comments. When few show up at public hearings or bother to write in with their comments, then reductions can be pushed through.

Next fare hikes: Metro did it's fare hike last year. The prices increase in a number of steps. Next to Metrolink: It raises fares every year. It runs the way a business should. Cost to operate increases, so fares go up a small percentage each year. My McDonald's breakfast went up several times in the last year. And so did it almost everything else: rent, gas, electric. So, Metrolink raises fares every year. Is there something wrong with doing something right financially?

So, you are one of the small sampling of people on the Metrolink Panel. That means you actually hold a lot of power. Your answers do count and it might tell Metrolink that the EZ Pass feature is important to a lot of the riders.

But to throw out a cynical answer when the Authority is just in the research phase is totally counter productive. I would guess that you care that the EZ Pass feature is important. It is to me. I actually went to the Metrolink Board and testified that exact concern. Have you written a letter to Metrolink?

Reduction in service? I thought we were well on our way to 30 minute headways on the OC Line? Whatever happened to that blue sky nonsense?

First, Metrolink has NOT announced a reduction in service. NickV did post something that someone on the Metrolink staff side screwed up and posted on the Metrolink website. But, then Metrolink retracted the information. Yeah, I talked to the Metrolink Financial Officer. He did mention he had a multi million dollar budget gap to fill and it appears that the scheduled price increase just isn't enough. Wasn't fuel at $2.95 / gallon at the beginning of the month? I sure saw it yesterday at $3.75 / gallon.

Now, to your "out of the blue comment" on the 30 minute OC service. Nothing has changed there. The track capacity, turn back sidings and other infrastructure projects are well underway. The extra train sets are coming in 2010. This service is in the OCTA Measure M budget and nothing has changed.

You can either ask someone here to find out about any service reductions or you can contact the Authority directly. But to put out misinformation before anything is announced unofficially or officially is just wrong. There is quite a difference between speculation versus facts and what you want to see happen.

Also, since the Metrolink survey was private, you did a pretty poor job explaining it to others who read this board exactly what you got, as the others have no way to know what document you are looking at. It was straight Market Research, without tipping the hand of the actions the agency might take. Twisting a survey into a public comment isn't right, especially when the agency doesn't know what the results will be.

[nickv]

No Metrolink Reductions Proposed

Mr Reed informed the board posters that Metrolink has NOT announced a reduction in service. Metrolink retracted the information. Sorry for any confusion!

The proposal to increase the systemwide fares remains. See this post for details.

[spokker]

admin said:

Have you written a letter to Metrolink?

Absolutely not. And judging by the traffic on this forum and others like it, few people have or appear to even care. Writing a letter doesn't do a bloody thing. Public officials are pretty much in the pocket of whatever lobbyist meets their price. I see these forums as a platform to bitch, not to make any real change.

I'd love to go to a hearing, but I'm already commuting two hours to work as it is considering all these frustrating transfers and delays. Perhaps if we had a better mass transit system I could get to the mass transit hearing to voice my concerns about our mass transit system.

I'd write a letter, but the scenario I imagine is one where they print it out, pass it around the office, and have a good laugh before getting back to whatever it is they do. I'm pretty sure they have a whole wall dedicated to transit advocate wackos and their letters.

Anyway, I saw the phrase "reduction in service" on Metrolink's web site and reacted to that. I noticed that the phrase has been removed and I'm glad it has. If it was a mistake on their part then fine, but reductions in service would not surprise me. The trend these days seems to be charging more for less. I don't care if you're a corporation or a transit agency. I just don't have faith.

I did not put any misinformation out there about service reductions. It was on Metrolink's web site. Please don't accuse me of that. The fare hikes do not worry me by themselves, but coupled with the service reductions it did. I'm sorry, you don't raise prices and cut service. That's the kind of thing that puts me back in my car.

When I talked about the survey I said nothing out of line. I mentioned that there was a survey and gave my impression of it. Again, as a cynical person I reacted to the survey in a cynical way. I DO NOT believe public officials have the best interests of the public in mind. California continues to drag its heels on mass transit and these little Metro lines like Expo and the Gold Line extension, or these little Metrolink projects here and there, do not impress me one bit. I'd have to see a nationwide change in the way this country thinks about mass transit to put a smile on my face. And some jerk on the Internet like myself isn't going to change that.

Finally, I will continue to comment on any survey Metrolink sends to me. If they don't want me to comment they can refuse to send me surveys. They were asking how I would feel about having to pay for transfers separately. I don't think it's a leap to assume that they are considering getting rid of that feature.

The last survey I got was about parking. Some of the questions had to do with paid parking. Let me guess, they were considering charging for parking?

I'm no activist. I'm just some anonymous bozo on the Internet.

[nickv]

Writing a letter doesn't do a bloody thing.

I think how a letter is written affects the outcome. Backing up your view with facts can make a difference and therefore good letters will play an important role in agency decision making. Riverside Transit is no exception. Check this out:

RTA had a public hearing last fall and here was one of their proposals for Route 38.



Now, in the Jurupa Valley area, there's a major shopping center known as Eastvale Gateway, in the area of Limonite Av and Hammer Rd, workplace to many service sector employees. The proposed realignment caused the route to bypass this area. NOT GOOD!

Next, read this RTA Board Report which includes the public comments that were submitted either at hearings or by written letter. My comments for Route 38 changes are on page 16 of the PDF file.

Now this is what the approved routing looks like now:



See how public comments can take a role in decision making? Eastvale Gateway and all its workers and shoppers therefore can continue to ride the bus. RTA also expanded Route 29 into this area too, most likely due to requests.

I'd write a letter, but the scenario I imagine is one where they print it out, pass it around the office, and have a good laugh before getting back to whatever it is they do.

They do become part of the pubic record and are reviewed by the Board of Directors and staff. View RTA Example. Trust us on this! The Transit Coalition has a history of bringing about good decisions from our transit leaders including the Expo Line, and is currently working on bringing 30 minute Metrolink service into several areas of LA County via Metrolink Max. Support letters requesting modest improvements will greatly help make this dream a reality.

[bluelineshawn]

Public comments are part of the process, but appear to rarely be part of the decision making process. Mass transit is political and individual comments have limited value. That's why advocacy groups like TTC are so important.

[nickv]

The last survey I got was about parking. Some of the questions had to do with paid parking. Let me guess, they were considering charging for parking?

I remember taking a public Metrolink survey on parking. I don't know if this is the one you took or not, but one of the questions asked how commuters would be affected if parking tolls were initiated at busy stations such as North Main Corona and Irvine. This survey was open to the public.

Since the local cities and/or local transportation agencies own/operate the stations, I believe they are the ones who decide if their Metrolink stations should have parking tolls (I have to check on this). For example, in Norwalk, commuters are required to have a parking permit to park at Norwalk. The San Clemente (North Beach) and San Juan Capistrano stations use toll lots; drivers enter the lot/structure, buy a parking pass, slip the ticket under the windshield, and park their car.

RCTC operates the North Main Corona Station and has reported that once the North Main Corona parking structure project is done, parking will remain free for commuters.

[dasubergeek]

admin said:

It is not a "Public Survey", but one targeted to members of the Metrolink Riders Panel, which does Market Research on rider needs and expectations.

I also got this survey. While I don't agree with the jumping to conclusions that spokker has done, I have to agree with him that the survey made it very clear that Metrolink are considering changing or doing away with the EZPass part of the Metrolink ticket.

I have to say, though I am committed to taking public transit, I will not do so if it is not reasonably convenient for me or at least not absurdly more expensive.

Metrolink is convenient ONLY because connecting transit on both ends is covered by the Metrolink ticket (though it leads to arguments with bus drivers if you're planning to buy a one-way ticket when you get to the Metrolink station).

Right now, a round-trip weekday ticket from Anaheim to Burbank costs $14.00. If I have that ticket, theoretically I can board OCTA at my house and take two buses to get to Anaheim station; take the two Metrolink trains to get to Burbank station, and transfer to the Glendale Beeline to get to my office.

If I had to pay for those separately, it would be:

$3 for an OCTA day pass (two buses, you see)
$14 for the Metrolink ticket
$1 for the southbound Beeline
$1 for the northbound Beeline
===============================
$19 total expenditure

That's $0.50 a mile. Metrolink's self-serving estimation of driving costs notwithstanding, that's quite an expensive commute, especially since gas costs me about $0.09 a mile -- hard to believe that the remaining auto expenses would total $0.41 a mile.

I have to assume that, given their budget crunch, they're not exactly going to "pass along the savings" from removing EZPass from the ticket by lowering the train prices.

Assuming they allow EZPass to continue, getting a transfer is not that big a deal, except that the Beeline and the Burbank Bus (which is free to anyone -- there are no fareboxes) are not at all set up to give transfers.

[spokker]

dasubergeek said:

Metrolink is convenient ONLY because connecting transit on both ends is covered by the Metrolink ticket (though it leads to arguments with bus drivers if you're planning to buy a one-way ticket when you get to the Metrolink station).

That's why I carry around a printout of the EZPass rules. One bus driver on Metro tried to keep my ticket and said it was only good for one way. I had to show him my printout so I could sit down.

The first time it happened I didn't have my printout but the guy just let me on because he didn't feel like arguing. Frustrating though.

[dasubergeek]

spokker said:

dasubergeek said:

Metrolink is convenient ONLY because connecting transit on both ends is covered by the Metrolink ticket (though it leads to arguments with bus drivers if you're planning to buy a one-way ticket when you get to the Metrolink station).

That's why I carry around a printout of the EZPass rules. One bus driver on Metro tried to keep my ticket and said it was only good for one way. I had to show him my printout so I could sit down.

The first time it happened I didn't have my printout but the guy just let me on because he didn't feel like arguing. Frustrating though.

Right... so what do I do if, say, I'm planning to take OCTA 57 to Anaheim Metrolink and then buy a one-way pass? OCTA are pretty good about it, but change it up -- say I'm taking Metro 164 to Burbank Metrolink to go to Orange County and buying a one-way ticket there -- and it's a headache.

[Transit Coalition]

Metrolink announced the real information about the proposed fare increase, service cuts and EZ Pass adjustments at it's monthly board meeting.

On the fare increase, it will probably be as high as 7.5%. The missing link was the increased amount of subsidy that the member agencies will kick in to moderate the increase. There was finally a sign in the last few days from Metro that they will kick in some money. With that in hand, the other Counties in the SCRRA will also chip in more money.

How can you help? Write a letter to Roger Snoble, Metro CEO, asking that he increase funding to Metrolink to hold the fare increase to 7.5%. Send copies of this letter to each Metro board member.

Next the EZ Pass solution. Metro went (actually imposed) and raised the cost of the EZ Pass to Metrolink from $ .40 / ticket to $1.10 / ticket as the reimbursement rate. To work with the riders who transfer to other bus and rail systems, starting perhaps as early as January 2009, when you buy a Metrolink ticket or pass, you will be given an option to purchase a transfer. It will be $ .25 / ride. So, a 10 trip will cost you $2.50 additional and a monthly pass will cost $11.00 additional.

Considering what Metro imposed, this is probably the best of all possible solutions. There will be public hearings on this proposal later this year.

Next, on to the suggested service cuts. NONE. The Metrolink budget was short about $20 million. With Metro and the other SCRRA partners chipping in enough to hold the fare increase to 7.5%, a 21% fare increase and service cuts were avoided.

I am really concerned about starting rumors and going off half cocked on our board, when we can get the actual information. The agency might not have done the best on handling the new budget, but the intent was to alert the public about possibilities, rather than blindsiding everyone.

[spokker]

admin said:

I am really concerned about starting rumors and going off half cocked on our board, when we can get the actual information.

What rumors? They sent out a survey. They announced fare increases on their web site. How much more information do you need to know that fare hikes are coming? How much more information do you need to know that they are considering changing how much we pay for transfers? They erroneously announced service cuts on THEIR OWN web site.

The problem here is lack of communication by Metrolink, which has always been a huge problem with the agency. If they didn't want people grumbling about fare hikes and service cuts, they shouldn't have announced them until they had the exact information. When people hear about potential bad news, they think the worst. It's only human nature. And when I get a cryptic survey in my email I'm going to comment on it.

If communication is such a damn concern where are those delay warning systems at Metrolink stations they have been going on about? Riders have taken it upon themselves to create their own warning systems so they can know when Metrolink's old broken down equipment, well, breaks down. www.lapassenger.com and www.clevercommute.com/index.php

The mass transit situation in Southern California is a delicate one and riders should be handled with kid gloves to keep them on the train, not drive them away. I really can't believe Metrolink mistakenly announced service cuts on their own web site. Sounds like someone is going off half cock over there.

[spokker]

Got this in the ol' email box today.

Dear Metrolink Rider,

Thank you for your recent participation in the March 2008 Metrolink Rider Poll survey regarding possible changes to Metrolink’s fare policy.

About half of all Metrolink customers use connecting transit services as part of their daily trip. They have always been able to use their pass or ticket to transfer to connecting buses and trains without paying an additional fare. Metrolink has paid the other transit agencies for these transfers. Later this year, transit agencies in Los Angeles County will increase the rate that they charge Metrolink for accepting Metrolink passes and tickets. This is expected to result in an additional cost to Metrolink of $1.6 million per year.

The March survey asked members of the Metrolink Rider Poll to weigh in on the issue. Over 1,190 survey responses were received, many of which expressed a strong preference for being able to use their Metrolink pass or ticket to transfer. The findings have encouraged Metrolink staff to recommend that the transfer privilege be continued with some changes to the program and cost sharing with customers who wish to transfer to connecting transit. Riders will be notified of any change once the Metrolink Board of Directors has acted on staff’s recommendation.

Thank you,

Henning Eichler (Metrolink Market Research Manager)

I guess some changes are coming to the way transfers are handled.

As long as you are able to add the transfer privilege to your ticket when you buy it, I see no problem here. It would be stupid to have people go get a transfer when they transfer to the Red Line or something.

[Transit Coalition]

Transfers for Metrolink will be 25 cents, after the 1st of the year. After you start your ticket transaction, there will be a new question after you have given the basic trip information, which is: Would you like to buy a transfer. If, Yes, you will pay an additional quarter, per ticket purchase. So, for a ten ride with transfer: $2.50 extra or a monthly, it will be $11 additional.

This is supposed to go into effect in January 2009, after public hearings are conducted in the late Summer. With the cost of fuel going up so much, staff also announced that there is a possibility of an additional fare adjustment, if needed also in January.

Right now, the biggest Metrolink operating expense is fuel. It costs Metrolink $8.25 / mile to just move the trains.

[dasubergeek]

Apr 18, 2008 10:57:25 GMT -8 Transit Coalition said:

Transfers for Metrolink will be 25 cents, after the 1st of the year. After you start your ticket transaction, there will be a new question after you have given the basic trip information, which is: Would you like to buy a transfer. If, Yes, you will pay an additional quarter, per ticket purchase. So, for a ten ride with transfer: $2.50 extra or a monthly, it will be $11 additional.

This is supposed to go into effect in January 2009, after public hearings are conducted in the late Summer. With the cost of fuel going up so much, staff also announced that there is a possibility of an additional fare adjustment, if needed also in January.

Right now, the biggest Metrolink operating expense is fuel. It costs Metrolink $8.25 / mile to just move the trains.

I don't mind the transfer fee, honestly I don't -- though it will be interesting to me to see how the Burbank Bus deals with it, since there are no fareboxes on the buses. If you really are not going to use the transfer, it stands to reason you shouldn't pay as much as someone who is.

But the continued increases are ridiculous. The 3.5% increase for July is now already going to be 7.5%. Now they want a mid-fiscal year increase too? At some point it is going to cost less for me to drive than to take the train. Currently the one-way cost from Fullerton to Los Angeles is $6.25. The 7.5% increase in July will make that $6.72, and assuming another similar increase in January, that will be $7.22, or 28 cents per mile.

Regardless of where the actual line is about the cost of driving versus taking public transit, the PERCEPTION will be that it would be cheaper to drive, which will depress ridership and drive up prices.

[jeffe77]

Metrolink Board approves increase to systemwide and Group Travel Program fares
04/25/2008

At its meeting of April 25, 2008, Metrolink's Board of Directors approved the following increases in fares:

• An increase of 2.0% in system-wide average fares in addition to the previously approved fare adjustment of 3.5% (for a total of 5.5%) that would take effect on July 1, 2008 to keep pace with higher costs to operate commuter train service.
  
• An increase in the discounted fare for the Group Travel program, from $7.00 to $10.00 for a round trip ticket with an increase in the minimum number in the group from 10 to 15 beginning July 1, 2008, index future increases to system-wide fare change proposals and implement increases when they reach $1.00 increments.
  

Metrolink is faced with the increasing cost of diesel fuel, which is currently expected to jump almost $4.8 million above the FY 2007-08 budgeted level, increased maintenance costs of nearly $3 milion due to the arrival of four new locomotives and the pending arrival of new rail cars, as well as increasing reimbursement costs to fund seamless transfers of Metrolink passengers to other transit operators. These three items are responsible for 77% of the total increase in the agency's Operations budget.

The 5.5% increase in fares is estimated to generate approximately $3 million in additional revenue beginning July 1, 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloadable Fare Table

A table of fares increased by 5.5% from current fares can be downloaded by clicking here (9mb)

(Tables require Microsoft Excel® for viewing)

[bobdavis]

Mac's question about electrification touches on something that we "juicefans" (electric ry. buffs) have thought about for a long time. Up north, the likelihood of Caltrain (SF to San Jose and Gilroy) going to electric overhead power seems to be increasing; local transit pundits are already discussing MU cars vs. electric locomotives hauling the existing cars. Here in the Southland, the San Bernardino ML line would be most likely to get trolley power first, although it's still a long way from Caltrain or Metro North levels of service. Back in the early 90's I rode an excursion on the then-Santa Fe line from Santa Ana to San Bernardino where it was pointed out that all new signal structures were high enough to clear overhead contact wires should they ever be installed. If Orange County starts running 30-minute headways, this would definitely put them in the "big leagues" and make their rails good candidates for electrification.