|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 20, 2007 10:29:01 GMT -8
You know what....I just don't care anymore. I want this proposed fare increase to be approved, that's my opinion. All transit news is just apathetic to me until we get the basics accomplished, and that's having the farebox recovery necessary to operate metro. I don't want to see service cuts, that's my biggest fear. I feel we were progressing well w/ Eastside extension, Expo Line, passage of 1A & 1B until we find out what an a**hole Schwarzenegger is and how the media is portraying the fare increase as racism. Whereas Santa Monica & Metrolink will raise fares with a lot less contraversey (as just did recently New Jersey, and other major cities), Los Angeles struggles with "common sense" policies b/c we have these individually minded groups (i.e. BRU, Cheviot) pushing their own ideology's onto the public.
I want to continue advocating, but until we get the fare situation sorted, what can we do? It's not like the MTA will be able to expand if our fares continue articifically low. I wish we had more pro-fare publicity in newspapers as well, it seems everybody wants to s*** on the MTA when they're doing something that's really "common sense". We need to get out and advocate more instead of having people like Eric Mann preach how raising fares is racism at USC. I'm just tired of this, let's pass the fare increase and get onto expanding a mass transit system. W/o a decent fare system, the L.A. system is f***ed (sorry...but, that's the truth).
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 28, 2007 5:26:18 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, April 28, 2007 MTA fare hike may not be the ticket: Experts warn an increase could hurt ridership and low-income riders. By Rong-Gong Lin II and Francisco Vara-Orta, Times Staff Writers Standing Room Only Fare Hikes Planned After a decade of being largely restricted from raising bus fares by a federal judge, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is proposing a sweeping series of fare hikes that some experts worry will discourage commuters from using mass transit. The hikes would establish some of the highest bus fares in the country. The basic fare would rise to $2 from $1.25. About 87% of all MTA passengers use some form of bus or rail pass, which would see larger price increases of up to 400% over the next 20 months. MTA officials say that the hike is needed to help cover rising operating costs and that they have already cut 500 jobs. Without the higher fares, they say the agency would have to slash service. But there are growing questions among transportation experts about whether steep fare increases make sense at a time when L.A.'s roads are more clogged than ever. "The dream of every bus rider is to have a car," said James E. Moore, director of USC's transportation engineering program, who expressed concern that big fare hikes might push more people into buying cheap cars. Moore said several economic studies of transit fare hikes have shown that for every 10% increase in a fare, ridership drops 3%. The MTA wants to raise the cost of a monthly transit pass to $75 from $52 by July and to $120 by 2009 — increases that Moore said he believes will prompt some riders to abandon the bus and rail. The proposed MTA fare hike comes as San Francisco examines a radical reduction in fares to encourage more use of mass transit. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last month ordered a study of eliminating bus and streetcar fares to determine whether free fares would get more commuters out of their cars. Some urban planners as well as the L.A. Bus Riders Union have proposed that the MTA sharply reduce fares — to 50 cents — or make them even free. They argue that lower fares would encourage more people to use mass transit, reducing traffic and pollution. There is some evidence that reduced fares might draw more riders. In early 1980s, county voters approved a transit sales tax measure that reduced bus fares to 50 cents. The discount drew so many new passengers to L.A. buses that ridership surpassed Chicago's. There were complaints about overcrowded buses and increased pickpocketing. Transit officials raised fares in 1985 — and ridership dropped. Two other hikes since then were followed by declines in ridership, according to MTA data. The MTA records about 1.6 million bus and rail boardings each weekday, many of them low-income riders who do not own cars. According to an MTA survey in 2001, the average family income of a bus rider was $12,000, and $22,000 for rail users. "It really puts all the burden on the poorest, who are really relying on the bus," Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of the UCLA Department of Urban Planning, said of the fare hike. But others worry the higher fares are most likely to drive away more affluent riders who take the Gold Line, Orange Line and Red Line into downtown from the suburbs. A rider who has a car may react to a fare hike by saying, "Oh, forget it. I got the car. I've paid the insurance," said Brian Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies. MTA officials acknowledge they expect ridership to fall initially. Still, they said the agency needs to close an operating deficit brought about largely by the $1.3 billion spent in the last decade on buying buses and adding service while keeping fares low to comply with a federal consent decree. Transit officials agreed to the decree in 1996 to settle a civil rights lawsuit with bus riders. A federal judge permitted the decree to expire last year, ruling that "quality of life has improved for Los Angeles' public transit dependent poor population." The only fare increase the judge allowed during the decade-long decree was a modest increase in weekly, monthly and semi-monthly passes. Ridership dropped, from 430 million riders in 2003 to 394 million in 2004. The MTA has also tried other ways to balance its budgets, officials said. More than 500 administrative jobs were eliminated in the last five years, and the agency has begun blanketing Metro stations with product advertisements and selling commercial time on buses equipped with TV monitors. But without a fare increase, bus service would need to be cut by one-third, said Marc Littman, an MTA spokesman. "It's simple economics. We have to ask our customers to pay a little bit more of what it costs to run the service," Littman said. "The alternative is to cut service, and no one wants to retrench." The MTA — whose board could vote on the hike as early as May 24 — also rejects the argument that reducing fares would help. They say extra riders would only further drain resources and not significantly increase revenues. The prospect of increased fares are leaving some bus riders steaming. "It seems like the hikes are hurting the most vulnerable," said Rosa Calles, a 62-year-old part-time housekeeper who commutes by bus from Highland Park to West Los Angeles. Her annual household income is $16,000, and she could see her $12 monthly senior pass rise to $37.50 by July and $60 by 2009. Melissa Zacharias, a biology student at Santa Monica College, worried about how she would manage the 25-mile commute from her home in South Gate. Her family has no car and would see her $30 college monthly pass rise to $52.50 by July and $84 in 2009. "I mean, I barely have enough money now to pay for the bus," said Zacharias, waiting for a Red Line train at Union Station on a recent afternoon. "I think I would have to carpool with more people. It's tough trying to pay for college alone." But John King, who uses bus and rail to commute from Hollywood to his sales job in North Hollywood, said he is willing to pay more if the MTA can improve service. "The transit system has made a lot of headway and gotten better, but it's going to have to get better if they are raising fares," said King, 43. "Hopefully they will use the extra money to fix up the buses." Other bus and rail systems in California have raised fares in recent years, but in at least three counties, the hikes have been less dramatic. In San Bernardino County, bus fares are scheduled to rise in July — but by a much smaller percentage than what the MTA is proposing. In 2005, Riverside Transit Agency approved a modest increase in fares. Ridership declined by 11% after the fare hike but recovered after about a year. In Orange County, officials raised bus fares in 2005 — the first hike in 14 years — but still less than what the MTA is proposing. The fare hike proposal caused some transit experts to question the wisdom of the MTA's huge investment in rail. The agency is building two rail projects — the Expo Line to Culver City and the Gold Line extension to East L.A. at a total cost of about $1.5 billion. "You see how crowded the buses are, and yet ... the Gold Line at 4 in the afternoon is practically empty," said Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of "The City: A Global History." "Obviously the buses are in demand much more than the more expensive stuff, so why aren't we putting more money into the buses?" Kotkin said. "It seems to be unconscionable we could be raising fares so a few yuppies from Santa Monica can go downtown on the subway." MTA officials respond that while rail accounts for about 17% of ridership, it is growing and is a key to moving people in the future as the rail network expands. Taylor, of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, said the MTA could charge long-distance riders more and short-distance passengers less if customers used pre-paid "smart cards," embedded with computer chips, to deduct fares. Long-distance riders tend to be wealthier and tend to ride during rush hour, Taylor said, while short-distance riders are more likely to be lower income and tend to ride during off-peak times. ron.lin@latimes.com francisco.varaorta@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 28, 2007 5:35:55 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Friday, April 27, 2007
Opinion OpEd Piece: Metro fare hikes are the only way Deep deficits and chronic under funding mean business as usual can't continue without large fare increases.
By Roger Snoble, ROGER SNOBLE is chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
FOR DECADES, Los Angeles County taxpayers have been heavily subsidizing fares for Metro bus and rail riders. The subsidies rose sharply under a federal consent decree — in place since 1996 and ended last October — when a court-appointed special master ordered a massive expansion of bus service and fares were essentially frozen. That has resulted in a $1.8-billion projected operating deficit for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over the next 10 years.
But the deficit doesn't exist in a vacuum. It threatens to choke off mobility options for 10 million residents whether they walk, bike, take a bus or train, carpool or drive a car or truck. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity and income and no matter what mode of travel they use, pays the sales taxes that pay for our transportation programs, so we all have a stake in the fare subsidy dilemma.
County taxpayers are not getting what they expected when they voted twice since 1980 for local sales taxes intended to further modernize and expand public transit and improve streets and highways. Last November, voters overwhelmingly approved a nearly $20-billion state bond measure to build highway and public transit projects. Metro's huge operating deficit is siphoning local funds that could be used to match bond money and other state and federal funds to fast-track critical highways and transit system projects.
This is what drove the Metro staff, which I head, to propose a major fare restructuring. We simply can't continue business as usual and still provide quality service to our customers. Although the base cash fare is $1.25, the average rider pays only 58 cents a boarding. This is due to deep discounts for the various pass holders. Fares cover just 24% of the cost of a ride; 76% is subsidized by taxpayers. In 1988, taxpayers subsidized 56% of each boarding passenger's ride.
Metro staff is proposing raising the $1.25 cash fare to $2, beginning in January 2009. Day passes would increase from $3 to $5 in July, and to $8 by 2009; monthly passes would go from $52 to $75 in July, and to $120 by 2009. This is not out of line with other major cities. A daily pass costs $9 in Boston, $8 in Atlanta and $7 in New York City, and many carriers already charge $2 base fares. If the Metro board adopts the proposed fare changes, the average passenger will still pay only 86 cents per ride.
It's simple economics; our revenues don't cover our costs, and if we don't do something now, we're just postponing the inevitable and making the problem worse for the future.
Metro has diminished its reserves, slashed more than 500 administrative positions in the last five years, reined in workers' compensation costs and aggressively pursued every avenue to raise more revenue, including blanketing our buses and Metro Rail stations with ads. But it's still not enough.
We recognize that higher fares will be difficult for our customers. It's the last thing we want, but we have forestalled acting for far too long. At this point, if we don't make the fare change, it will be much worse for our patrons because cuts in service will be more painful, leaving many riders stranded.
Despite rising costs for equipment, fuel, labor and other operating expenses, Metro has maintained one of the lowest fare structures in the U.S., even as we undertook the greatest expansion of service in our history. Over the last decade, under the federal consent decree, Metro purchased more than 2,000 clean-air buses and added more than 1 million hours of service.
Metro ridership in 2006 rose almost 6% over the previous year, double the national average. However, we're faced with the difficult but very real choice between charging higher fares or providing less service. History tells us that our customers are willing to pay more as long as the quality and level of service remains high. The fare change is this agency's commitment to deliver the service our patrons have come to rely on.
End of Roger Snoble's Opinion
****************
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, April 28, 2007
Letters to the Editor: Fare increases will punish riders
Re "Unfair fares," editorial, April 21
It is disturbing that upon announcing the success of the Gold Line, and with all the enthusiasm for the use of the other Metro lines, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would now seek to increase fares. Many using the lines can ill-afford the increased fares.
Part of this success and the increased use have been the management of the lines and increased gasoline prices. Certainly the lines have taken much traffic off the roads. The increase in fares is therefore alarming and will be costly for those who have made the lines successful. The success of the lines will diminish with increased fares.
If the MTA wants its riders to continue to use the Metro lines, it should, if anything, reduce the costs — certainly not raise them.
HOWARD B. BROWN, Manhattan Beach
•
The average MTA fare paid is 58 cents because of passes and other discounts the MTA offers — few pay the $1.25 base fare. The average fare is 95 cents for some other big transit systems. Thus the increase to $2 for the base fare is justified, especially given a 12-year absence of any fare increase. But projected increases of 130% for monthly passes and 170% for day passes — to say nothing of 400% for passes for the elderly — seem awfully greedy.
The MTA should consider better and long-overdue ways to raise fares: Apply the same zone-based fares charged for existing express bus trips to light rail and subway trips, charge higher fares during peak periods when capacities are strained and lower rail and maybe bus fares off-peak within the downtown core to spur ridership and revenues when there is extra seat capacity.
RICHARD STANGER, Venice
****************
Bart Reed comment:
OK, if there isn't enough raised to keep the existing system up, the Plan "B", where 25% of the service is going away will continue to go into effect. Metro service planners have told me that there will only be 7 North South routes in the whole San Fernando Valley, if the next round of service cuts goes into effect as is going to be proposed for December. I am not sure I like the choice being offered: No Service, for a little fare increase or a very expensive Taxi Ride if you need to go somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2007 14:15:23 GMT -8
OK, if there isn't enough raised to keep the existing system up, the Plan "B", where 25% of the service is going away will continue to go into effect. Metro service planners have told me that there will only be 7 North South routes in the whole San Fernando Valley, if the next round of service cuts goes into effect as is going to be proposed for December. I am not sure I like the choice being offered: No Service, for a little fare increase or a very expensive Taxi Ride if you need to go somewhere.
Exactly! There needs to be some middle ground. Most people don't want the MTA to keep hemorrhaging money, but there needs to be some reasonableness. The product currently provided is substandard. The rail lines are too few and the buses are too slow. How can we be expected to pay 3x as much for what we get now?
I'm just so disgusted by the whole idea. It's almost enough to make me consider joining that lame BRU. This should be a very hot issue, but local politicians don't seem to be getting involved. If this passes it will be a catastrophe. Ridership will go waaayy down and traffic will go way up. People already at the low end of the wage scale will no longer be able to get to their jobs. They might as well just eliminate the 25% of the lines anyway and keep the fares low because they're going to lose at least that many riders.
Poor people seem to be doubly screwed in LA County. On one hand we have the BRU that is determined to keep the poor as bus-dependent, 2nd class citizens and now we have the MTA that suddenly feels that it needs to turn a profit. I don't know if it's the MTA or the County Supervisors that are initiating all of this, but if this goes through and our local economy is screwed from the bottom up they will see what a big mistake they made.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 28, 2007 15:38:25 GMT -8
OK, if there isn't enough raised to keep the existing system up, the Plan "B", where 25% of the service is going away will continue to go into effect. Metro service planners have told me that there will only be 7 North South routes in the whole San Fernando Valley, if the next round of service cuts goes into effect as is going to be proposed for December. I am not sure I like the choice being offered: No Service, for a little fare increase or a very expensive Taxi Ride if you need to go somewhere.Exactly! There needs to be some middle ground. Most people don't want the MTA to keep hemorrhaging money, but there needs to be some reasonableness. The product currently provided is substandard. The rail lines are too few and the buses are too slow. How can we be expected to pay 3x as much for what we get now? I'm just so disgusted by the whole idea. It's almost enough to make me consider joining that lame BRU. This should be a very hot issue, but local politicians don't seem to be getting involved. If this passes it will be a catastrophe. Ridership will go waaayy down and traffic will go way up. People already at the low end of the wage scale will no longer be able to get to their jobs. They might as well just eliminate the 25% of the lines anyway and keep the fares low because they're going to lose at least that many riders. Poor people seem to be doubly screwed in LA County. On one hand we have the BRU that is determined to keep the poor as bus-dependent, 2nd class citizens and now we have the MTA that suddenly feels that it needs to turn a profit. I don't know if it's the MTA or the County Supervisors that are initiating all of this, but if this goes through and our local economy is screwed from the bottom up they will see what a big mistake they made. No transit lines make a profit buddy...none. They're not looking to make a profit, but to keep up w/ the costs. Is it fair the MTA had to increase the bus/rail riders pay in the last 3 union negotations w/o allowed to raise fares? Is it fair the MTA was not allowed to increase fares while the minimum wage increased two fold since 1996? Be reasonable buddy. I'd rather maintain the service we have, than lose it. BTW, ridership will go down, that's a no-brainer. MTA has acknowledged it. Do they expect ridership to increase w/ higher fares? Now, that's unreasonable. That's not what the MTA is looking for, they want to control costs w/o cutting service.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Apr 28, 2007 18:38:26 GMT -8
"Is it fair the MTA was not allowed to increase fares while the minimum wage increased two fold since 1996?"
We have to understand that the income level in L.A. is not comparable to New York, Boston, or San Francisco. Minimum wage means nothing here. Health insurance ? Forget about it. We are in our own third world country. About a third of this city is comprised of working poor. In places like Koreatown more than half are working poor. And then you have the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who use public transportation exclusively and earn about $5 per hour. I agree, fares have been kept artifically low for way too long, and our service has been skeletonized to a bare minimum quality. Doubling the fare rate could have disastrous results as incomes cannot keep up.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2007 21:00:33 GMT -8
No transit lines make a profit buddy...none.
That's actually not true, but either way I really didn't mean that to be taken literally. Sorry to confuse you.
They're not looking to make a profit, but to keep up w/ the costs.
That's a political decision that they may eventually regret. Besides they've spent a lot of money purchasing new equipment over the last 10 years. We have the newest bus fleet in the country. We won't continue to buy the same amount of new equipment indefinitely. Except of course the 60 foot NABIs that the MTA seems to be in love with.
Is it fair the MTA had to increase the bus/rail riders pay in the last 3 union negotations w/o allowed to raise fares? Is it fair the MTA was not allowed to increase fares while the minimum wage increased two fold since 1996? Be reasonable buddy.
We should have had fare increases before now and would have if it weren't for the consent decree. I did not support the consent decree and I do support a fare increase. I just think that 130% is obscene. Somehwere around 50% would be tolerable. I don't feel that I am being unreasonable. Just because I don't support the 130% increase does not automatically make me unreasonable.
I'd rather maintain the service we have, than lose it. BTW, ridership will go down, that's a no-brainer. MTA has acknowledged it. Do they expect ridership to increase w/ higher fares? Now, that's unreasonable. That's not what the MTA is looking for, they want to control costs w/o cutting service.
Yes ridership will drop when there is a fare increase. But our ridership as indicated by the MTA's own reports is extremely low income and we're talking about a very large increase. If they raise fares by 130% the bottom will drop out of our ridership. Other agencies have rasied fares by 25% and have lost 10% of their riders and then they build it back up. We're not talking about that. Our fares are going to increase by 130%. We will easily lose 25% of our ridership. Possibly more than that. Possibly much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 28, 2007 21:15:17 GMT -8
"Is it fair the MTA was not allowed to increase fares while the minimum wage increased two fold since 1996?" We have to understand that the income level in L.A. is not comparable to New York, Boston, or San Francisco. Minimum wage means nothing here. Health insurance ? Forget about it. We are in our own third world country. About a third of this city is comprised of working poor. In places like Koreatown more than half are working poor. And then you have the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who use public transportation exclusively and earn about $5 per hour. I agree, fares have been kept artifically low for way too long, and our service has been skeletonized to a bare minimum quality. Doubling the fare rate could have disastrous results as incomes cannot keep up. Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Apr 28, 2007 23:24:56 GMT -8
I agree, fares have been kept artifically low for way too long, and our service has been skeletonized to a bare minimum quality. Doubling the fare rate could have disastrous results as incomes cannot keep up. Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say. So while the bru has an absolute opposition to any fare increase, the Transit Coalition should lobby for a fare increase that is most fair for all Metro riders.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 28, 2007 23:37:15 GMT -8
MetroRiderLA will soon post a "fairer" fare alternative to Metro's proposed fare schedule.
The Transit Coalition is free to reproduce it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 28, 2007 23:42:24 GMT -8
I'm just so disgusted by the whole idea. It's almost enough to make me consider joining that lame BRU. The BRU is at least 50 percent responsible for the current financial mess. Supporting it is only going to lead to a bigger crisis next year. And this is nowhere near as bad as 1994. In the spring of that year, Metro was in such dire straits that it was looking to cancel all weekend and night service (an over 60 percent reduction in service). That had to be the lowest point for public transportation in Los Angeles. Let's not have it come to that.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 29, 2007 8:34:58 GMT -8
Mr Wad: Of course we will help promote your fare adjustment proposals. I did speak to three Metro Directors on Friday about the fare increases. We at Transit Coalition have long advocated a consistent series of gradual fare increases to maximize revenues while creating little impact on riders as possible. The key benchmarks are the monthly pass and daypass. If you notch them up every six months for a number of years, say six, you will change the rate of impact, but you will solve the deficit problem in a much slower fashion. To keep the budget balanced, you are still going to lose much more bus service, but as enough fare increases kick in to bring farebox recovery back towards 40%, the pressure to cut service will not be so great. I am simply looking at the revenue side here where daypasses go up every six months: $4, $5, $6, $7, $8 and monthly passes after an initial adjustment to $70 also go up in $10 steps. Is this going to meet the needs of the cost side? That is a big question in all fare proposals. In 2009, the labor contracts will again cause a bump in costs, hopefully without a strike. With the opening of the East L.A. Gold Line and Expo Line, there will also be a significant redeployment of bus service. And, if Metro moves forward in building the Downtown Regional Connector, the Harbor Subdivision, Purple Line to Fairfax, Crenshaw Line to LAX, you will have future revenue requirements, as you are going to have to expand the bus system, as these rail lines will cause a transit use tipping point and require lots of feeder service. ___July 2007 $4.00 $70 January 2008 $5.00 $80 ___July 2008 $6.00 $90 January 2009 $7.00 $100 ___July 2009 $7.50 $110 January 2010 $8.00 $120 ___July 2010 $8.50 $130 January 2011 $9.00 $140 ___July 2011 $9.50 $150 January 2012 $10.00 $160 ___July 2012 $10.50 $170 Sure, I don't like the ultimate activity of asking for more, but many don't quite get it, that the base bus service we have today is getting eroded. To pay for more Orange Line service, the North South weekend service on Tampa, Winnetka, DeSoto is going away. When I see the complaints that we don't have good enough service for the cost value, the answer is raise prices to keep what we have. It's obvious from comments here that many aren't big fans of the advertising. It brings in some dollars. Metro has cut 500 non operating jobs. This should have never been done, because it only delayed getting to price increases for a couple of years. After I visited Toronto several times over the past couple of years, I saw a huge amount of bus and rail service with a base fare of $2.75 and a day pass of $8. People are paying and riding. Are any of these prices fair? Maybe, maybe not, but I know what Taxi and Private Car prices are and that is another rung to jump to, so I bet there are still a ton of opinions on this, so comment away. The electeds will determine the future May 24. It's better to have a healthy and robust system, then a system of little choice.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Apr 29, 2007 12:30:40 GMT -8
It's obvious from comments here that many aren't big fans of the advertising. It brings in some dollars. Metro has cut 500 non operating jobs. This should have never been done, because it only delayed getting to price increases for a couple of years. I don't mind the advertising at all - JUST MAKE IT DIVERSE! I mean a hundred humongous Angus Burger ads placed all over a station is too cheesy. But one Mc D's Angus Burger ad, plus a couple movie ads, plus an ad for Target, plus a Nike ad, plus an ad for Coca-Cola, etc, that's perfectly fine.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 2, 2007 10:40:17 GMT -8
One thing that really bothers me in the whole debate about the fare increases that is especially perpertuated by the LA Times is the fact that people think that buses are much cheaper to operate than rail. I don't have the exact up to date figures, but I am pretty sure all rail lines except for the Gold Line are operated more cheaply than the bus system. Why is this never discussed? This doesn't even take into effect the additional pollution buses spit out (even with Natural Gas), the wear and tear on the roads they cause, as well as the additional traffic they cause by constantly jutting in and out of traffic as well as by just taking up space. People also can't seem to understand the difference between operating expenses (which are continuous) and one-time capital expenditures (which are frequently allocated by the state and federal govts.)
I get so tired of people blaming the subway or other rail lines for the fare increase as that has little to do with it. When will the truth come out? Also, everyone seems to not want the fare increases as do I, but I see very few letters or opinions in the LA Times and other areas that suggest where the money should come from to avoid this. Why isn't Schwartzeneger's spill over account grab being discussed in regards to this? If the fares aren't raised, then taxes must be raised or service severely slashed. I'd be in favor of a gas tax that is indexed to inflation to help cover transit operations, but don't think that will ever get on the table.
People just want easy choices. We have a Governor who is an "environmentalist" but drives a hummer. We have a President who gets us involved in a war, but "cuts" taxes to pay for it (actually makes our children pay for it). No one wants to face tougher choices. I'll stop my ranting.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 5, 2007 11:14:19 GMT -8
Here are the Letters to the Editor in reply to the above article:
Los Angeles Times: Saturday, May 5, 2007
Reassess decision on fares Re "Transit fare hikes called unwise," April 28
The thorny question of whether to raise fares or reduce service or both will always plague us. Someone, some way, somehow will have to come up with the money to pay for high-quality mass transit and other transportation needs.
I really don't think James E. Moore of USC speaks for all bus riders when he says they all dream of using a car instead. I also doubt whether the Bus Riders Union speaks for all transit riders, especially because the consent decree they helped impose is what got us into this mess. Although I don't think that the proposed sharp increase in rates is realistic or appropriate, the need to separate those who are truly indigent from those who can easily afford to pay a fare is paramount. We have to either enhance revenue to improve our service or reduce our service. Pick one.
KENNETH S. ALPERN President The Transit Coalition Los Angeles
•
Raise the basic transit fare to $2 from $1.25? Insane. San Francisco has the right idea. Mass transit should be subsidized, partially or totally, and the lion's share should be paid by people who drive cars.
Many of us bus riders are happy to ride the bus, reduce our carbon footprint and maybe even have time to read the paper on the way to work. There should be more buses, not fewer, and if it takes more taxes to do it, so be it. The pullback from catastrophic global warming is not going to be painless. But it's not going to be accomplished by raising fares when we should be trying to encourage more people to use mass transit.
JIM HOFFMAN, West Hollywood
•
If a cost-benefit analysis of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority budget were done for each mode of transit separately, it would be found that, with the proposed fare increase, we will have bus riders massively subsidizing rail riders. Is this good social policy? The proposed fare increase gives the opportunity for a sobering reappraisal.
It was made obvious by the Orange Line, if it was not obvious already, that the most cost-effective means of enhancing mass transit is through the bus system. The rail option is for a time when a massive commitment to mass transit has been achieved in this metropolitan area. Our mass-transit system needs many more capillaries. Until that happens, more main arteries remain irrelevant except of course in terms of cost.
By putting rail first, we assured ourselves the burden of high cost before we had any chance at all of high ridership.
SIEGFRIED OTHMER, Woodland Hills
•
Low-fare schemes convert transit systems into overcrowded floating motels for vagrants and truant youths. It keeps motorists in their cars and only gains ridership from existing riders making more trips. This is a Trojan-horse scheme designed by those who never ride transit.
The Citizens' Advisory Council of the MTA has voted unanimously to urge the board to drop its bargain-basement fares and have the courage to address the operating deficit emergency with fares in line with the realities of this decade.
ROGER CHRISTENSEN Chairman, MTA Citizens' Advisory Council Sherman Oaks
•
If I were a used-car dealer, I would lobby hard on behalf of MTA's proposed fare increases.
ART DETMAN, Pacific Palisades
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 22, 2007 8:45:44 GMT -8
Is anybody from TTC going? We need people to give the voice of reason to the MTA. I have to fly out of the country that morning, otherwise, I would try to help fight against this bs call of "transit racism".
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 22, 2007 10:19:47 GMT -8
This just in from LA Times.
It seems the Mayor Antonio is caving into the BRU's "anti-fare, anti rail, everything should be free sentiment". ********************************************************************
Mayor seeks to ease MTA hikes Villaraigosa proposes smaller increases to help low-income bus riders and suggests ways the agency can free up cash to cover expected deficit. By Duke Helfand and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers May 22, 2007
Assailing sweeping bus fare hikes proposed by the MTA as "extreme," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Monday called for more modest increases that would ease the financial crunch on low-income riders.
Villaraigosa offered his plan as part of a larger strategy to address the agency's estimated $104-million deficit for the coming fiscal year, a figure that Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials fear could balloon without new revenue. The MTA provides mass transit across Los Angeles County.
To make up for the more modest increases, the mayor suggested that the transit agency free up cash by borrowing money to finance the purchase of buses and rail cars over the coming years, slightly reduce the frequency of rail service and aggressively pursue state gas tax money.
Villaraigosa, who sits on the 13-member MTA board along with three of his appointees, laid out his scenario in a letter to fellow board members. The board is scheduled to vote on the fare hikes Thursday.
Under the mayor's plan, cash fares would remain untouched at $1.25. Other prices would rise about 5% annually to keep up with labor and fuel expenses.
As a result, the mayor proposed that the cost of a day pass would rise from its current level of $3 to $3.31 in 2009 — compared with MTA's proposal of a hike to $8 in that span.
Also under Villaraigosa's plan, monthly passes would increase from $52 to $57.33 in 2009, far less than the MTA proposal of reaching $120 by that year.
In his letter to the board, the mayor said the "proposed increases are extreme and would have a fundamentally negative impact on ridership and our most vulnerable customers, many of whom are low income and transit dependent."
MTA chief Roger Snoble declined to comment on the mayor's proposal, saying through a spokesman that he wanted to review it further. But in a Times opinion piece last month, Snoble argued that the MTA's operating deficit is siphoning money that could be used to help build transit and highway projects.
Agency spokesman Marc Littman said the MTA recovers 24% of its operating costs from fares — below the 38% recovered by most large transit agencies. And fares have been largely stagnant for the last decade, even as the MTA has purchased 2,100 buses, he said.
The MTA faces difficult choices as it struggles to balance its books, Littman said.
"If you don't do it with fares, then you have to do it some other way, and the other way is to cut service, and we don't want to do that," he said.
The L.A. Bus Riders Union rejected Villaraigosa's overture, saying any fare increase would reduce ridership, increase pollution and ultimately hurt the city's poorest residents.
Statistics provided by the mayor's office showed that 81% of MTA bus passengers earn $15,000 to $24,999 a year.
"Our position is no fare increase at all — not one cent," said Damon Azali, a senior organizer for the Bus Riders Union. "Once they win the right to a fare increase, they will keep pushing it."
Azali and other critics of the proposed hikes have accused the MTA of spending too much on a rail system that serves a small portion of Los Angeles County at the expense of badly needed bus service on some of the region's most crowded routes.
Villaraigosa acknowledged that his proposed increase in debt financing could ultimately slow the MTA's ability to build transit projects. But the mayor reiterated his call for a greater expansion of mass transit in the city and region.
"While we have a duty to ensure that our bus system is robust, the MTA also has obligations to invest in our rail system and our highways," he wrote. "I truly believe that the MTA must develop a multi-modal system, one that has a first-class bus system, a first-class rail system and a first-class highway system."
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 23, 2007 17:41:17 GMT -8
Jerard Wright and myself will be at the fare hearing to give a 10 minute Transit Coalition presentation. If anyone wants to join us, let me know via email at info@thetransitcoalition.us. Rick Thorpe and others have mentioned that should the fares not be adjusted, then there will not be money to run the new rail lines that open in 2009-2010. Even RTD, the largest all bus operator in the country had 110% fare box recovery to now only allow the service to be run, but to buy replacement buses. Metro farebox recovery has gone from the mandated 38% down to 23%, so the solution is to just cut service every six months to balance the budget.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 23, 2007 21:12:25 GMT -8
This just in from LA Times. It seems the Mayor Antonio is caving into the BRU's "anti-fare, anti rail, everything should be free sentiment". ******************************************************************** Why are you jumping to that conclusion? The BRU blasted the Mayor because they are absolutely against ANY fare increase. I don't think the proposed MTA increases are fair, but I think a fare increase of some kind is necessary. I could live with a modest fare increase, but if I were to accept the MTA's proposed extreme increase, I will be driving my car more. I think it's ridiculous for ANY side to make this an absolute, either-or iissue. I think the BRU is full of sh*t, but I don't like what the MTA has proposed. And I think it's ridiculous to expect anyone to accept that.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 23, 2007 22:54:48 GMT -8
The L.A. Times has called Metro's bluff in an editorial a while back, and sure enough, it looks like it came true.
Basically, the L.A. Times figured the fare schedule proposed was a ploy for one of the pols -- in all likelihood Mayor Villaraigosa -- to come out with a less onerous fare increase, and make the politicians look good in the process.
Sure enough, that's just what happened. The problem I see with Villaraigosa's "mortgage" proposal is that in typical political fashion, a punt looks like a solution. The fare issue isn't resolved, but put off again for another two or three years. It also looks like it relies on a gambit to backfill the capital costs when they are due. If the gambit fails, Metro would have to cancel future projects and cancel existing operational service to pay of the backfill, and we would have nothing to show for it.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 24, 2007 4:51:32 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Thursday, May 24, 2007
EDITORIAL: Raise fares, not a ruckus The MTA board needs to find the happy medium between too extreme plans.
DOES ANYONE AT the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or on its board know how to confront a difficult budget decision directly and honestly? Judging from the outlandish choices before the board today as it weighs possible fare hikes, apparently not.
On the one hand is a proposal from MTA chief Roger Snoble that is all brain and no heart. Snoble, asked to crunch the numbers and come up with a way to eliminate the agency's structural deficit, released a plan in March that within two years would raise L.A.'s transit fares by up to 400%, with especially punitive increases for vulnerable populations such as seniors and students. If enacted, it would cause ridership to plummet.
On the other hand is a blueprint from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that is all heart and no brain. On Monday, he released a plan to raise most fares 5% annually to keep pace with increases in labor and fuel costs, while cutting rail service and buying buses on credit rather than upfront. It would do little to fix the deficit, which comes to $104 million for the next fiscal year; relies on state gas-tax money that may not be forthcoming; and, by increasing the debt load, could restrict the agency's ability to expand transit systems in the future.
There are few issues in Los Angeles more politically charged than public-transit fare hikes, which might explain the absurdity of these two plans. Both may be dead on arrival, but for Snoble and Villaraigosa, that doesn't really matter. By proposing such an outrageous increase, Snoble may have been providing political cover for board members to back more reasonable hikes. Villaraigosa, meanwhile, facing heavy pressure from the Bus Riders Union, has now positioned himself as a friend to low-income riders even if the rest of the board does the responsible thing and rejects his proposal.
Amid this posturing, the MTA confronts at least one unpleasant fact: It must raise fares. After settling a civil rights lawsuit by the Bus Riders Union in 1996, the agency agreed to a federal consent decree that forbade it from increasing fares while forcing it to spend $1.3 billion on buses over the last decade. That improved local bus service, but in order to achieve the gains, the agency has been cannibalizing itself for years. Big transit systems in the U.S. get 38% of their operating revenues from fares, on average, while the MTA went from 32% before the decree to 24% today. If transit riders don't start paying their fair share, the agency will have no choice but to cut bus and rail service, which won't benefit anybody.
There's a happy medium between gouging riders and pandering to them. We're counting on more rational members of the MTA board to find it today.
**************
Los Angeles Times: Thursday, May 24, 2007 News Article: MTA fare decision seen as pivotal By Rong-Gong Lin II and Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writers
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority today will consider approving a series of large fare increases that would hit bus riders particularly hard at a time when officials are spending $1.5 billion for a network of new rail lines.
The vote is seen as a pivotal moment for the MTA, which until last year was under a federal consent decree to improve bus service but kept fare increases at a minimum over the last decade.
Although 82% of all MTA boardings are on buses, the agency is increasingly bullish on rail projects, which officials see as a long-term solution for moving large numbers of people across the region as street congestion increases. At 73 total miles of rail, the MTA's system is still much smaller than those of other major cities and leaves many parts of the county without service.
MTA chief executive Roger Snoble has recommended raising the cash fare for both rail and bus to $2 per ride from $1.25 and the monthly pass to $120 from $52 over the next 19 months.
Officials say the increases are needed to close a projected deficit created, in part, by the court-ordered expansion of bus service, as well as by the expansion of the rail network. Rising fuel prices and employee benefits have also hit the agency hard.
The MTA is also struggling with $4.7 billion in debt accrued over the years to build rail lines and other capital projects, including its $300-million, 26-story downtown headquarters.
For the current fiscal year, the MTA is budgeted to spend $360.6 million paying down its debts — more than its entire $229-million budget for operating the rail system.
The MTA is pushing for the higher fares as it constructs new rail projects to East Los Angeles and Culver City at a combined cost of about $1.5 billion. It is also planning new routes from Pasadena to Azusa and from Culver City to Santa Monica. These projects would probably add more debt.
Today's hearing "is a big day for L.A.," said MTA spokesman Rick Jager. "We are at a point now where something has to give."
Some critics say the fare hike would essentially fund rail improvements on the backs of bus riders, who tend to be significantly less affluent than rail riders, MTA statistics show. The median household income of a bus rider is $12,000, according to the MTA, compared with $22,000 for a rail rider.
Rosa Mazo, a worker at the Bonaventure Hotel who was waiting for a bus Wednesday, said the fare increase would be unfair to the working poor.
"I depend on the bus all the time," said Mazo, who commutes from Echo Park. "I know some people who make minimum wage, and for them, it's so hard.... We end up staying in the same hole, never getting out."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stepped into the divide this week, proposing a compromise. It would keep the cash fare the same over the next two years and boost other fares by only about 10%. It would also reduce rail service frequency in the short term and use loans, rather than cash, to buy buses and rail cars, which could slow down future projects.
But some transportation experts say Villaraigosa's proposal does not resolve a financial problem that could worsen as more rail comes on line.
"It's a classic political compromise: The fare hikes are unpopular, the budget crisis is real, so we'll raise the fares" by a smaller amount and try to find other funding sources for the rest, said Brian Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies. "Debt finance is putting it on the credit card — it's a short term thing to avoid tough decisions.... it's a strategy. It's not really a solution."
The MTA says it has already laid off 500 administrative employees, blanketed rail stations with advertising, added TV monitors airing commercials in buses and performed other belt-tightening and revenue-generating measures. But Taylor and others said transportation leaders have avoided looking at bigger-picture items, such as renegotiating labor contracts, charging fares based on distance traveled or contracting out some services such as maintenance to non-unionized firms.
There is also much debate about whether the MTA's commitment to rail makes sense given its limited funding and the sprawling geography of Los Angeles County.
James E. Moore, director of USC's transportation engineering program, said focusing on buses would be a smarter, less costly alternative. He and others point to busways on a dedicated road such as the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley. The line has surpassed the MTA's ridership estimates.
"The bottom line is that the MTA's financial problems will never improve so long as we cling to rail as a priority," Moore said.
But others strongly disagree, saying the county's worsening congestion is going to make bus service on its busiest roads — such as Wilshire Boulevard — increasingly difficult. Rail backers argue that the MTA's rail ridership will grow rapidly as it expands to new neighborhoods.
Adding more rail lines, particularly to underserved areas such as the Westside and San Gabriel Valley, will ultimately boost ridership throughout the entire system, they say.
"Rail gives greater speed, it's more comfortable and it has higher capacity than buses," said Darrell Clarke, co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit, which has been pushing for the line from downtown to Culver City. "Buses are stuck in traffic."
Overall, rail is much more expensive to operate than buses — $348 per hour of service compared with $114. But rail backers say trains are ultimately more efficient than buses because they can carry more passengers.
The debate in Los Angeles over rail versus buses has been going on for decades. It intensified after voters approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation in 1980.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, L.A. transit officials began a rail building boom, starting with the Long Beach-to-downtown Blue Line and by the mid-1990s adding the Red Line subway and Green Line rail that runs between Norwalk and Redondo Beach.
But bus riders complained that the agency was neglecting bus service while raising fares. Several groups, including the Bus Riders Union and NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit against the MTA in 1994. Two years later, the agency agreed to enter into a federal consent decree, in which a judge oversaw the way the MTA dealt with bus service.
The judge ordered the MTA to increase bus service significantly while keeping fares relatively flat. Over the last decade, the MTA purchased more than 2,000 new buses, expanded service hours and added the popular rapid bus system on some key routes.
But at the same, the agency continued building rail, adding the Gold Line and expanding Blue and Red line operations.
MTA spokesman Jager said the decree, which expired in 2006, represented a "double whammy" because the agency dramatically increased service without gaining more revenue.
Officials said that without a fare increase, the MTA would have to cut up 30% of its bus service. If the increase fails, the MTA said it would not have enough money to operate the Gold Line East L.A. extension and the Expo Line to Culver City, both of which are now under construction.
The predictions have bus riders including Dawn Renderos, 33, shaking their heads.
"It's already expensive," Renderos said. "For them to raise it like that, that's extreme."
The MTA board of directors will hold a public hearing on the fare hike proposals today at 9 a.m. at its headquarters at East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and North Vignes Street in downtown Los Angeles.
ron.lin@latimes.com, cara.dimassa@latimes.com
Times staff writers Nancy Vogel in Sacramento and Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 24, 2007 20:57:07 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Thursday Afternoon, May 24, 2007
MTA approves a smaller fare hike
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin Times Staff Writers The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors today voted to hike fares today, but by a smaller amount than the agency had originally sought.
The compromise, written by county Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavsky, calls for fare increases that are larger than proposed in the plan put forward by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The mayor's plan was rejected by the board earlier today, handing him a significant political defeat. Other than his three appointees, Villaraigosa received only one other vote of support.
The action came after a daylong hearing that drew 1,500 observers to MTA headquarters near Union Station, some who spoke about the fare hikes and more who protested outside the meeting. The fare-hike proposal pitted rail riders against those who use a bus in a mass-transit system that serves a region plagued by clogged highways and roads.
Most of the demonstrators opposed the original increase, which would have raised the cash fare for both rail and bus to $2 per ride from $1.25. The monthly pass would have increased to $120 from $52 over the next two years.
Instead, under the compromise plan that was approved, fares will increase to $1.50 on July 1, 2009. The $3 daily pass will jump to $5 on July 1 and $6 in 2009. The $52 monthly pass will go up to $62 on July 1 and $75 in 2009.
A special 25-cent fare will be established for the disabled and seniors 65 and older. The fare would be in effect 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and after 7 p.m. on weekdays, and all day Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays. It will increase to 30 cents in 2009.
Earlier in the day, MTA chief executive Roger Snoble defended the proposed larger increase, saying: "We are at a crossroads."
"We have a great system," he said. "We just can't pay for it."
"In the final analysis, the choice comes to raising fares or decreasing service," he said.
The morning began with more than 200 chanting protesters crowded into the marble lobby of the MTA building, two floors below the board room, where the 13 directors listened to speakers condemn the increase. The protesters' chants, in English and Spanish, could be heard upstairs.
The number of demonstrators steadily grew throughout the day to more than 1,500, police said. The MTA boardroom can hold about 300, so officials were forced to open four overflow rooms, including the cafeteria, to accommodate the crowd. Security was tight.
By midday, only about a third of the 300 people registered to speak had testified. Most were low-income bus riders, union organizers, students, seniors and disabled people, opposing any increase.
Lucy Duran, 62, of Mount Washington, told the panel that her family "can't even get a gallon of milk on our table," much less afford to pay more to ride the bus.
"The fare increase means less food for us, even fewer tortillas on the table," she said.
Roger Christensen, chairman of the MTA's Citizen Advisory Council and an appointee of MTA board member Richard Katz, spoke in favor of the proposed larger fare increases and agreed that they should be spread out over several years.
"We do feel this is necessary and very long overdue," he said. "We have to face the structural deficit."
Officials say the increases are needed to close a projected deficit created, in part, by the court-ordered expansion of bus service, as well as by the expansion of the rail network.
Rising fuel prices and employee benefits have also hit the agency hard, officials complain.
The MTA is struggling with $4.7 billion in debt accrued over the years to build rail lines and other capital projects, including its $300-million, 26-story downtown headquarters.
The fare increases particularly irritate bus riders at a time when officials are spending $1.5 billion for a network of new rail lines.
Although 82% of all MTA boardings are on buses, the agency is increasingly bullish on rail projects, which officials see as a long-term solution for moving large numbers of people across the region as street congestion increases. At 73 total miles of rail, the MTA's system is still much smaller than those of other major cities and leaves many parts of the county without service.
The MTA is pushing for the higher fares as officials construct new rail projects to East Los Angeles and Culver City. It is also planning new routes from Pasadena to Azusa and from Culver City to Santa Monica.
Some critics charge that the fare hike essentially funds rail improvements at the expense of bus riders, who tend to be significantly less affluent than rail riders, according to MTA statistics. The median household income of a bus rider is $12,000, according to the MTA, compared with $22,000 for a rail rider.
At an earlier news conference in a bus yard a block away from MTA headquarters, pushed for his proposal, which seeks a smaller fare increase. The mayor, who sits on the board, called for a 5% fare increase during each of the next five years.
Villaraigosa was flanked by representatives from the Los Angeles Federation of Labor, AARP, the Coalition for Clean Air and other groups.
"Rome wasn't built in a day, and this deficit wasn't created overnight," the mayor said. "It's wrong to balance the MTA budget on the backs of seniors, the disabled, students and low-income families."
The mayor suggested that the MTA reduce the frequency of rail service and borrow to buy new buses rather than pay for them immediately.
He acknowledged that the county transportation agency may have to slow down construction of new light rail lines as part of his proposal, including phase two of the Expo and Gold lines.
Times staff writer Michael Muskal contributed to this report.
ron.lin@latimes.com * jeff.rabin@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 24, 2007 23:52:48 GMT -8
Oh, no, not Rabin again.
Transportation coverage by local media is on its best day bad, but Rabin is the worst of the worst. He developed the reputation of being the Bus Riders Union's public relations director. With him on the beat, he'll essentially "stovepipe" stories to frame them the way Eric Mann wants them, a la Judith Miller.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 25, 2007 10:30:33 GMT -8
From the L.A. times today:
Why don't they just pin the blame where it really lies, Gov. Arnold Schwartzennegger has left mass transportation on life support since he took office. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lopez: Points West Everyone loses with MTA's rate decision May 25, 2007
The bright young Westchester High School students I was talking to at Thursday's Metropolitan Transportation Authority meeting were being cheated.
The elderly riders I met with were being cheated too.
Everyone knew the ridiculously high rate hike proposal by the MTA would never happen, just as they knew Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was trying to win cheap political points with an equally improbable counter that involved more borrowing.
So the MTA board compromised in the end. Big surprise.
Crisis averted.
Long-term problem ignored.
In Southern California and nationally, transit systems are hurting because of flat federal and state funding while operating costs go up. But honest fixes are seldom debated.
MTA chose the standard course: Wait until the crisis could no longer be ignored, pander and posture, patch things over with a compromise that fixes nothing but allows the agency to muddle through.
In the crowd of 1,500 transit riders who want a smarter approach and better service, Sierra Girtley, 18, and Unique Harston, 17, said a bus gets them to Westchester High. They told me how hard it would have been on their parents if the fees had been doubled.
"My dad says he just can't pay that," said Girtley, one of three siblings who each pays $20 monthly for a pass.
The MTA's compromise — a convoluted and constantly changing rate hike of roughly 50% over the next several years — wasn't a win for anyone.
But I shouldn't pin all the blame on the MTA, even though it's tempting after the defeat of Villaraigosa's proposal had him sniping with fellow board member Zev Yaroslavsky to the benefit of no one. State and federal officials are culprits in the collective failure to support transit, despite the growing social and economic cost of congestion and pollution-related illness. Where's bold, creative leadership when you need it?
Would the option of a few high-speed toll lanes for Los Angeles motorists raise enough money to buy the buses the MTA needs?
Is it time to mandate that large companies offer transit vouchers to employees and eliminate free parking?
Does the efficiency of smaller transit systems in Santa Monica, Culver City and the foothill cities suggest that the MTA should be broken into smaller regional agencies?
Is it time to increase the 18-cent federal gas tax or use more of it to fund transit?
Should developers get bigger incentives for building near transit centers?
"There's no question that in a metro area like L.A., a transit system cannot be sustained" by current formulas, said Martin Wachs of the Rand Corp. "You need some form of tolls or parking or gas increases, with a transfer of funds from auto users to transit users."
He and Brian Taylor of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies support a variable fare system, saying it's illogical to charge a flat $1.25 for a bus ticket regardless of whether the rider goes 30 miles or three blocks. "It would be like United Airlines saying it's $349 for all flights, whether you go to Fresno or Hong Kong," Taylor said. On buses and trains, longer commuters tend to be more affluent than those who travel short distances, so a variable rate would be more equitable.
It's time for the MTA board and the Southern California Assn. of Governments to lead a discussion on these kinds of solutions and fight for their support here, in Sacramento and Washington. As it is, they're on a slow bus to nowhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- steve.lopez@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 25, 2010 10:57:28 GMT -8
The fares are scheduled to rise again this year after a 1 year delay. I believe that they go up at the start of the fiscal year (July). Single rides will be $1.50, day passes $6 and monthy passes $75. According to an article in the LA Times an additional increase may be required to meet the budget gap caused by Sacramento. I think that I'd rather see another increase than any debilitating cuts. I would think that most riders would agree, but LA riders tend to be at the very low end of the economic scale so they might rather wait longer every day than pay an extra $0.20 each day or whtaver it woud be.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 25, 2010 13:19:34 GMT -8
How much will day passes be? $70 is pretty steep as it is...
Anyway I'd rather have some cuts than go beyond $1.50 for the time being, at least open up more rail lines before we start getting to the $2 mark.
|
|