|
Post by spokker on Feb 13, 2009 22:47:37 GMT -8
Update: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/metrolink-fares.html--- Because of the monumentally stupid fare gates, the era of free Metrolink to MTA transfers may be coming to a close. latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/metrolink-trans.htmlI head into Downtown LA on Metrolink and into the Mid-Wilshire district on Metro, usually on weekends. Today that costs $10.50 round trip. If free transfers are discontinued that will necessitate the purchase of a $5 Metro day pass, which brings the total trip cost to $15.50. That's five extra dollars for 14 or so miles round-trip (the Union Station to Mid-Wilshire portion). It costs about $5.51 in gasoline to drive that same trip back and forth at $2.21/gallon in a car that gets 30 miles per gallon. Even if you take into account maintenance it can't be $15.50 per round trip to drive. Insurance is not considered because it's a sunk cost and I don't have a car loan. The same train trip will be $19 for weekday riders. Talk about driving people away from mass transit.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 14, 2009 13:37:02 GMT -8
That's pretty convenient, just when we finally get rail to the Westside, the free transfer program ends; those in the Eastside of the county who would want to try a ride on the Metrolink when a rail link to the Westside is finish may end up still driving into town.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Feb 14, 2009 20:58:43 GMT -8
I hope that in the future Metrolink can use the TAP system to make these transfers seamless.
Although I can see why Metro would squeeze every Metrolink commuter for a $5 daypass, it makes sense to provide some kind of discount 50% perhaps to make it more enticing.
This isn't 1st Class airline service, Metrolink commuters aren't made of money.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Feb 14, 2009 23:18:21 GMT -8
Actually, they might be. www.metrolinktrains.com/documents/About/System_Demographics_Fact_Sheet_2007.pdfAccording to their 2007 survey, the median household income of a Metrolink rider is $72,000. The median income of an MTA rider is $15,000. 84% of riders also have a car available to them. It would be interesting to see how many go back to their cars if transfers are taken out of the equation. Just sucks for someone like me who is a part-time worker and full-time student, definitely below the median income!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 19, 2009 9:43:19 GMT -8
Does anyone know with the new budget agreement for the State, if the public transit funds were eliminated since the gas tax increase didn't go through? I am disappointed that the gas tax increase didn't get passed (can't believe I am disappointed a tax didn't get bumped up), but I am hoping this saved the public transit funds, but I doubt it.
Otherwise, we are going to see more service cuts and things like the end of the free Metrolink transfer.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 19, 2009 12:51:29 GMT -8
By reading Streetsblog LA, Metro and LA County has lost a good chunk of dollars due to the new budget approved yesterday. I'm pissed that they raised the state sales tax but not the gas tax. That would have made more people reconsider using public transit. Also, could have saved some funds. Metro will have to cut about 160,000 service hours. At least the vehicle license fee nearly doubled. la.streetsblog.org/2009/02/19/final-ca-budget-cuts-gas-tax-increase-still-nothing-for-transit/
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Feb 25, 2009 21:04:03 GMT -8
so not cool. why can't the ticket machines they install have a slot for metrolink tickets or something. The turnstiles aren't built yet, they can still tinker with the designs. Look at Paris, their machines accept paper tickets.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Feb 26, 2009 6:12:25 GMT -8
so not cool. why can't the ticket machines they install have a slot for metrolink tickets or something. The turnstiles aren't built yet, they can still tinker with the designs. Look at Paris, their machines accept paper tickets. This is a possibility, in South Florida where I live, Tri-Rail (our version of Metrolink, albeit much smaller) issues tickets from TVMs that have a magnetic strip on the back, they can be used as free transfers to Miami Metrorail at the transfer station (and if you have a round-trip or other multi-ride ticket, you can use it at any other Metrorail station for a return trip to Tri-Rail).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 26, 2009 11:57:04 GMT -8
I'm not sure how the TAP card readers work, but that magnetic stripe idea might work.
because of our current budget mess, it's possible that the free transfers might have been toast anyways, but at least you wouldn't have fare gates as an excuse.
ultimately though, I think Metrolink should adopt the TAP card. smart cards have the potential to revolutionize transit, as long as the MTA doesn't botch the roll out.
|
|
|
Post by railman55 on Feb 26, 2009 15:41:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Mar 13, 2009 20:03:00 GMT -8
ok so i had an idea if metrolink gets TAP why cant you just buy at round trip and then the fair gates will just accept it is it really hard to just program some software
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 2, 2009 11:16:38 GMT -8
They just announced what they are proposing today. www.metrolinktrains.com/news/?id=3741The majority of Metrolink riders are commuters so I'm not surprised they removed transfers for one-way and round-trip riders, but it might make it harder to them to push weekend service. For those who make four transfers on a round-trip ticket that would mean an increase of $5, in the form of a Metro day pass. For those who make two transfers it would be an extra $2.50. For my situation, Anaheim-Los Angeles, a round trip to/from work would now cost $19 on weekdays, and $15.50 on weekends, an increase of 35% and 47% respectively, not including the actual 3-5% fare increase they are also proposing. Currently the 80-mile round trip to Los Angeles from Orange County costs $5.87 in fuel at $2.20/gallon in a car that gets 30 miles per gallon. Car payment (which I don't have anyway) and insurance payments are sunk costs, and would only apply if I didn't own a car. I would say maintenance and wear and tear are not much for a Honda Civic compared to other cars. At $4/gallon that round trip would cost $10.67 to drive. I cannot see how Metrolink can justify these increases in fares, again.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 2, 2009 12:11:35 GMT -8
If the prospect of a fare increase and loss of transfers has got you down, you can enter to win a 4-trip ticket here: trymetrolinkfree.com/I got a flier for it in the mail, lol.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 2, 2009 13:14:00 GMT -8
This news puts the pros and cons of fare gates into perspective. Pros: -Creates the illusion of safety and security from the boogie men who wish to harm us on the subway. - Cons: -Costs more to implement then it will actually save from fare evaders. - Negatively impacts regional connectivity by making it harder and more costly to transfer to Metro Rail or Metro Bus from Metrolink-Will be unmanned. Security would increase if the money were used to hire more fare inspectors. -Is being installed on a pathetic subway (compared to the rest of the civilized world) that isn't ready for fare gates. TAP is awful compared to other systems used in the rest of the world. SUICA, the re-loadable pass used in parts of Japan, works in all of Tokyo on three major rail operators, JR, Toei, and Tokyo Metro, providing flawless integration and connection between all three. Transit operators in Southern California need more guidance on how to work together, not work against each other. It's not a competition, it's a cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 2, 2009 14:24:57 GMT -8
I was just reading the Metrolink fare increase message, especially the part where they explain why they are not going to TAP.
I know that it would take time and money to install the TAP readers, and there are probably some software issues to take care of, but the explanation given by Metrolink sounds like a cop-out.
Here's the part I'm talking about:
"Each of the connecting transit operators in the six counties Metrolink serves has their own way of collecting revenue from ticket sales. TAP is only being implemented in Los Angeles County. If more counties adopted TAP, Metrolink would have to make a fiscally responsible decision on whether to adopt the electronic ticketing option. This decision would require the consideration of all connecting transit throughout the region."
If I'm reading this correctly, Metrolink is basically taking a "wait and see" "you go first" attitude towards TAP.
The argument that Metrolink needs to wait for OCTA, RTA, Ventura County, etc. etc. to switch to TAP first just doesn't hold water. If anything, Metrolink should implement TAP first because it would be easier to install TAP readers at the stations than it would be to install readers on all of the buses involved with OCTA, etc.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 2, 2009 14:38:25 GMT -8
It sounds like gates and TAP aren't the only reasons.
It sounds like Metro raised the rates it charges Metrolink to allow riders to transfer to Metro. That's odd because the base fare didn't go up. Why should the rates they charge to Metrolink go up?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 3, 2009 4:17:04 GMT -8
At $4/gallon that round trip would cost $10.67 to drive. I cannot see how Metrolink can justify these increases in fares, again. Maybe it has to do with September 12.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 3, 2009 6:08:26 GMT -8
At $4/gallon that round trip would cost $10.67 to drive. I cannot see how Metrolink can justify these increases in fares, again. Maybe it has to do with September 12. This lack of thinking and grasping the facts is a prime example why transit always loses. Yes, you may have paid the insurance, but if your car isn't moving, you aren't taking a risk of getting hit or rear ending someone. And, if your car is just sitting somewhere, your insurance covers other things like theft, hit and run, fire or whatever you have bet with the insurance company. I don't know why there is this crazy assumption that you can't adjust prices. If Metrolink subsidizes your ride by 45 cents on every dollar and you aren't paying the full cost, then who is paying that 45 cents? One thing you should learn: Charge the full and actual costs of a shared bus ride, which is about $3.00 average and there would be the money to actually run a good network of service. Toronto is somewhat of a model of this with a ride at $2.75 and a day pass at $9 and a monthly at $109. From the LA Times: Posted by: S.S. Sam Taylor | April 02, 2009 at 05:01 PM Really, is 77 cents a day the difference for you between car and train? I'll gladly pay the extra 10 or so bucks a month for this service rather than sit in my car in traffic everyday. The difference for me is a guaranteed earlier arrival and I can read my book rather than sit in traffic. I'll take the metrolink, which will still be a bargain as long as it is convenient to my work Oh, my! Let's see: Q: What is the travel distance between Anaheim and Los Angeles? A: The driving distance is approximately 40 miles. The driving time is approximately 1 hour, depending on variables such as traffic and weather conditions. The Federal Government reimburses me the real cost of driving at 58.5 cents per mile x 80 miles. So, this round trip is going to cost me $46.80 and this is versus Metrolink where I pay less than $15, don't have to pay for a parking space and can read or sleep on the train. That train trip is between 42 and 52 minutes. And I don't have to worry about a big rig jackknifing or other traffic woes. Yikes, how did you do in Math? .
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 3, 2009 7:00:42 GMT -8
I should correct myself. Insurance and car payments are mostly a sunk cost. You don't take all of it into account if you are choosing whether or not to take transit if you already own a car. You wouldn't consider the full premium, only the amount your premium would go up if you get into an accident and the deductible you would have to pay. Even that is hard to quantify, because there is a chance you might not even get into an accident.
I don't know and I don't care, but it's not going to be me. Even if I wanted to, I simply cannot pay it at this stage in my life. I tried to do the right thing and take Metrolink, but I guess they priced me right the hell out. I wasn't aware that commuter rail was a luxury for the upper middle class.
If that's how much it really costs to operate mass transit, then you might as well van pool. It's the most efficient commute you could take. Maybe we should be spending billions promoting and building facilities that encourage van pooling.
The Metrolink fare would cost $14 on a weekday. On top of that I would have to pay $5 for a Metro day pass to complete my trip and get back to Union Station. That comes to $19 to travel to/from my destination in Los Angeles.
I think the loss of transfers is going to hurt the weekend service they are so keen on promoting. In the past I have gone into LA on Metrolink for leisure, to spend a day with my girlfriend or something like that. Last week we went to the Los Angeles State Historical Park and then we went to Pasadena. I paid $21 for the both of us to ride round-trip on Metrolink. If I also had to buy a day pass for both of us, that would bring the cost to $31. If the "true cost of driving" is $46, then one could pay just $15 more, get there in half the time and not have to deal with any transfers, especially on the weekend when there is no traffic.
The 58.5 cents per mile you cite is all well and good, but I doubt that's how much it costs to operate my car. I purchased a 1998 Honda Civic that I take to a local mechanic that I trust, and charges significantly less than the rip-off dealer. This is how poor students get by when it comes to driving and I don't know why I insist on dealing with Metrolink anymore, including the delays and the extra time it takes to go anywhere.
I sure as hell don't make 70 grand a year, which is the median income of the average Metrolink rider according to their own surveys, so I guess I'm off the train and back on the freeway. It was fun while it lasted.
It's not even the usual fare increase that I'm fuming about, but dealing with the fare gates on Metro and the loss of transfers. Even when I did transfer from Metrolink, bus drivers would give me crap and I had to argue with them to let me on.
Metrolink and Metro and every other transit operator can keep bickering about this and that while our transit network as a regional system becomes anything but efficient.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 3, 2009 7:24:20 GMT -8
It's funny. Last year the excuse to hike up fares was the price of oil. This year it's labor. But wait, the price of oil is down, so why are we still paying for the old fare increase? Where is all this money going, anyway? Millions upon millions of dollars are spent on this thing and they can't even keep the trains from crashing into each other. By the way, the Toronto transit agency you cite as an example of paying through the nose for better service is doing a great job.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 3, 2009 12:30:59 GMT -8
It's funny. Last year the excuse to hike up fares was the price of oil. This year it's labor. But wait, the price of oil is down, so why are we still paying for the old fare increase? Where is all this money going, anyway? Millions upon millions of dollars are spent on this thing and they can't even keep the trains from crashing into each other. By the way, the Toronto transit agency you cite as an example of paying through the nose for better service is doing a great job. I have to say I agree to a certain extent on this. This is where government fails. I work in the private sector and our total compensation has gone down and I've had many friends laid off, yet government employees keep getting bigger pensions, and bigger pay, while the poor schlep who lost his job has to pay for it all. Labor costs rising just isn't acceptable in this environment. I realize a lot of this is from contracts and the people at the top are pretty powerless, but like I said this is where the system fails. The fuel cost increases seemed warranted but this does not, especially when those fuel costs have gone down so much.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 3, 2009 16:20:01 GMT -8
It's not the fare increase that has me up in arms, to be honest. I mean, fares are going to go up no matter what, if only because of inflation. Bart Reed has this weird libertarian-like obsession with getting rid of subsidies altogether, but I doubt that's a realistic proposal, at least in this climate.
It's really these fare gates that make me angry. I took a glance at that Metro live chat today and the Q&A included a question about fare gates and an answer about Mariachi station being first in June, with the rest of the gates being installed in the Fall.
Then they have the gall to talk about why they implemented TAP.
Fare gates that offer no security protection, cost more than the amount of fare evasion they will prevent and act as an impediment to mass transit in a city that is in love with the car, are really going to result in more seamless travel?
Someone got angry and asked about the transfer policy change.
Hopefully Tom gets an answer he could be happy with, someday.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 6, 2009 11:26:45 GMT -8
I for one think that faregates are more friendly to the novice transit user. I'd MUCH rather be told that I have the wrong ticket by a beeping faregate refusing to open than by a cop giving me a $250 fine payable only by personal appearance at the county jail.
|
|
|
Post by wakko11 on Apr 6, 2009 12:53:10 GMT -8
I happen to think that the fare gates are a great idea. So long as they work well and keep the fare evaders off the trains, then install them at all the stations. They work well in many major cities such as San Francisco, Washington D.C., etc.
Now the TAP system, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired...
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 6, 2009 14:10:15 GMT -8
you know guys, like it or not, faregates are probably inevitable. in fact, they were probably inevitable from the very beginning. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but I do think that we shouldn't be too surprised to see that the MTA is installing them.
you could see it in the way that the Blue Line was built. this wasn't any ordinary light rail line. until the Mission Valley line opened, pretty much all of San Diego's stations were at ground level, with no platform to speak of, and you could pretty much wander up to the station, and wander across the tracks even, because they built them minimalist to the point of being invisible. it's a design that works for them, and it would work for a Broadway Red Car line or a modern downtown streetcar
the Blue Line, on the other hand, was built with big station platforms, with obvious exit and entry points, and with a lot of the features of a heavy rail system. the Metro Rail system that we have built extends from Long Beach to Pasadena (give or take a downtown connector) and from Norwalk to Redondo Beach (give or take) and from downtown to North Hollywood.
by this summer, it'll reach into Boyle Heights, by next year, it'll reach Culver City, and eventually we want it to reach to Santa Monica, Westwood, the Crenshaw District, LAX, maybe to Azusa, into the South Bay and further into the Valley. if we succeed, we will have built a massive rail system — and large rail systems operate differently than smaller ones.
I've never illegally riden the Blue Line, but there have been plenty of times where I could have, because there weren't enough fare inspectors to inspect every train. and the MTA knows it. they want as close to 100 percent compliance as they can get, and why shouldn't they? fare gates will bring them closer to that goal.
it's unfortunate that they are introducing TAP cards at the same time that they are introducing fare gates, because while fare gates may be more controversial and less useful than advertised, smart cards really are a big deal.
I've see what smart cards and RFID technology can do elsewhere, and they do make travel easier because you can use one card for every situation (bus, commuter train, subway) and you don't have to carry cash around because it's all included on the card. I wish L.A. had a Suica card instead of TAP. The TAP card such as it exists right now is like a Ferrari without wheels. powerful and impressive if they would just add the right parts.
so, yeah. gateless train platforms were fun while it lasted, and the MTA is probably overstating its case for fare gates, but we probably should have seen this coming.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 7, 2009 14:59:04 GMT -8
From that post put up about the Metrolink decision i guess if its getting to expensive its ok but raising fares across the board is going a little too far maybe when we have a truly AMAZING public rail system they can reinstate what they have now i guess only time will tell but for now i guess im cool
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 8, 2009 4:16:48 GMT -8
they want as close to 100 percent compliance as they can get, and why shouldn't they? fare gates will bring them closer to that goal. Except that ... it doesn't. Transit agencies were posed this question of which is better: gates or proof of payment? Fare barriers only showed a 1-2 percentage point difference over proof of payment. However, both figures were in the mid-90s. The problem really isn't that there's still about a 5-6 percent delinquency rate. The problem is that in under either system, there are too many honest riders. (Under L.A.'s system, a rider caught without a fare pays the equivalent of 40 unsubsidized rides. An honest rider costs taxpayers four times his or her paid fare.) And there is no such thing as a fare system with 100 percent compliance. There will always be riders who figure out ways to beat the gates. Turnstiles can be jumped. Tokens can be slugged. Fare cards can be hacked. And even honest riders don't want to see the closest thing to a fail-safe barrier system: New York City's infamous "iron maidens".
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 8, 2009 8:28:15 GMT -8
Fare gates will stop this kind of behavior in Los Angeles! Oh wait...
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 16, 2009 0:01:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on May 16, 2009 16:39:27 GMT -8
Metrolink totally should just use the TAP system as well TAP's bomb yo Metrolink should just use both paper passes and TAP like Metro is doing right now
|
|