|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 12, 2014 10:08:45 GMT -8
As you know, rail and bus ridership is now going down thanks to lower gas prices. This shows how bad an idea the proposed fare increases are. Many people ride Metro to save money over driving a car. Increasing the fares will be detrimental to recent progress in Metro ridership. We want to accelerate the progress, not slow it down or even retard it. We don't want to go back in time in terms of use of public transit. To make up for the deficits, alternative ways need to be found. I think a penny-per-gallon gas tax could be a good way for example. Measure R money could also be used by finding extra funding for the Measure R projects from the federal and state government. LA Times article about proposed LA Metro fare increases |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 12, 2014 10:28:03 GMT -8
That's a simplistic way to view the fare restructuring.
For the majority of riders, this will actually be a fare reduction. By eliminating the 2nd boarding fee with a free timed transfer, it will be cheaper to for people that have to transfer (that's overwhelming majority of current Metro riders, whether they are transit dependent or not). This will encourage ridership.
The weekly and monthly passes are super duper subsidized now and it has to go up no matter what happens.
Ultimately, this proposed fare restructuring still doesn't go far enough. Metro needs to go to a distance based fare for rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 12, 2014 11:25:56 GMT -8
First of all, a very opinionated topic heading.
The fare restructuring, as it should be properly labeled, is something that is quite needed. Metro only recovers 26% of their farebox, which is significantly lower than other comparable cities at 35%. We need to objectively see how this can be addressed. Do we take away Measure R funds? Another sales tax increase to offset increases?
I think Metro's proposal is fare (pun intended). As noted earlier, most people are transferring at a minimum once to get to their final destination. Most do not need 1 way fare tickets or the all day pass. If we can increase the base fare and make a 90 minute timetable for transfers, this would actually be a fare reduction for a lot of people.
The only big nuance to the fare restructuring is the monthly pass increase. Unfortunatley, Metro does need additional funds to keep running their expanding Metro program.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 12, 2014 23:44:58 GMT -8
As you know, rail and bus ridership is now going down thanks to lower gas prices. This shows how bad an idea the proposed fare increases are. Many people ride Metro to save money over driving a car. Increasing the fares will be detrimental to recent progress in Metro ridership. We want to accelerate the progress, not slow it down or even retard it. We don't want to go back in time in terms of use of public transit. To make up for the deficits, alternative ways need to be found. I think a penny-per-gallon gas tax could be a good way for example. Measure R money could also be used by finding extra funding for the Measure R projects from the federal and state government. LA Times article about proposed LA Metro fare increasesExcept gas prices have not been going down. www.losangelesgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspxEven if it were true that prices were going down, a 10 cent a gallon drop means someone traveling 20 miles might be paying a whole 10 cents more for the trip. No one is going to suddenly switch to transit over that or vice versa. Because light rail is so costly to operate, we are in danger of losing our federal funding for Metro as a system must maintain at least a 20% recovery to receive. Our fares are cheaper than just about everywhere else and what Metro is proposing is hardly excessive. Couldn't disagree with everything in this post anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 13, 2014 11:08:03 GMT -8
If the ridership is going down even when the gas prices aren't, it's even worse because Metro is failing to attract riders then.
I am concerned about encouraging public transit in LA. LA Metro owes most of its recent success to low fares.
Of course, they shouldn't cut service and they should neither live with a deficit. That's why I suggested more Measure R money could be allocated to fares. Crenshaw Line alone sucked so much funds from Measure R for unnecessary underground sections and stations. Also, they are spending a lot on highways.
It's also not that fair to charge someone who rides only one bus the same as someone who rides two buses.
|
|
