Big MTA fare hikes proposed

Here are the proposed fare hikes from the MTA. CNS is saying the agency is proposing a fare increase effective July 1, and a second increase Jan. 1, 2009:

--The regular cash fare for bus and rail lines would remain $1.25 until 2009, when it would increase to $2 -- a 60 percent increase.

--Day passes would increase from $3 to $5 in July, and up to $8 by 2009.

--The semi-monthly pass would be eliminated, and monthly passes, currently $52, would increase to $75 in July and $120 by January 2009.

--The EZ Pass, which is a monthly pass that allows commuters to ride all Metro and municipal bus and rail lines, from $58 to $95 in July and $140 by 2009.

What do you think of the fare hike? Hit COMMENT below and join the discussion.

Comments

[Danny Quinones]

I Think That The New York MTA 2009 Fare Hike Is Ridiculous. Because, That Leaves New Yorkers
Broke. To The Point Where They Can Pay Their
Bills Anymore. New York Stand Up, & Let The
MTA Know They Need To Stop Raising The Fares.

They Constantly Abuse Us Every Year. And We Can't
Afford To Take More Abuse From Them Than We Already
Have.

[Adisa A]

My son just got his phone jacked (stolen) during the evening while returning to Long Beach from LA. He attends a tutoring program M-TH. The tutoring program was great but looks like I have to find an alternative in Long Beach. Since looking into this train theft, I've been told that people are being hit up left and right for their phones, so much that the sherrifs can't keep up with the crime levels and the MTA refuses to let them post warning at the risk of scaring riders away. So in the absence of warnings, young teens get on the train with their $400. - $500. "sidekick" phones and began texting ---- totaling unaware of the risk. At minimum there should be a poster campaign providing warning to riders, "If you use it you just might possibly loose it." LOL One sherrif shared with me a folder of phone theft cases including people being beaten up for their phones. The majority of the theft seem to center at the Green Line / Blue Line crossing. A phone theft poster campaign would go far towards informing the public of the risk of using expensive electronics on the train. So in absence of a public warning I think I will start a web-site where the public can report MTA phone theft.

[Dot]

As a white bus rider I'm tired of hearing about how "racist" this rate hike is. No, I can't afford a rate hike either but how dare anyone imply that only minority people take the bus in this city? No wonder we have such poor race relations in this city, everyone's looking for a reason to blame racism for what is, in fact, just the typically lame way this city is administrated.

[ad]

Everyone please also call your representative, to make sure these cuts do not happen. We can't have cuts and hikes from LA public transportation when the freeways are already jammed. I support money for school kids' buses but this the wrong pot of money to steal from!!! Steal from the people with large SUVS with one goddamn person in it! Oh and don't forget our dear Governor.

[Rick]

I know that the system's finances are in trouble, so I'm okay with a reasonable fare hike. But, $120/month only a two short years from now sounds incomprehensible!

Even in New York, where "everything costs an arm and a leg", an unlimited-ride monthly pass is only $76.

I understand that there are significant differences in operating costs between Los Angeles and New York. But in a city such as Los Angeles where most public transit riders are low-income, such an extreme jump in fares could make commuting impossible to many.

Let's not forget that fare hikes will further deter future riders from considering Metro as a viable option. I can already hear everyone saying, "$120/month? To ride the bus?! I'd rather pay the extra money for gas and just drive."

The people that can afford cars will stomach the rising cost of gas and continue driving. They won't join in to help pay for the new, higher fares. They'll just stay on the freeway, cursing in traffic, as lower-income citizens will be left with no affordable method of transportation.

Necessary fare hike? Sure.

$120 monthly pass? No.

[Jeff B. Mamet]

The head of the Los Angeles County bus and rail system has proposed substantial increases in the fares that riders must pay. MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble proposes increasing the base fare from $1.25 to $2.00, the Day Pass from $3 to $8, the monthly pass from $52 to $120, and several other increases.

The proposed monthly pass increase would make MTA just about the most expensive public transit system in the country. The proposed $8 Day Pass would result in no savings for most riders.

48% of bus riders have a household income of less than $15,000.

90% of the students who ride the bus are minorities.

The proposed rate hikes undeniably aer discriminatory against the poor and minorities.

It's bad enough that minority students are disadvantaged by the huge loss of time that riding the bus to and from school causes. The proposed rate hikes will further disadvantage them by placing an unfair financial burden on their families.

The MTA's Executive Board has told Director Snoble that his job performance review would be based on his ability to quickly reduce the deficit under which the MTA is operating. In essence, Mr. Snoble has been told to recommend a rate hike or lose his job. This is an irresponsible tactic by those responsible for running the MTA.

There are better solutions to the MTA's financial problems -- such as increasing the county sales tax or the state gas tax. The Executive Board asked Mr. Snoble to propose a solution while limiting the possible solutions to cutting service or raising rates.

The burden of solving the MTA's financial problems should reside with the city, county, and state governments. Mr. Snoble should retract his rate hike recommendations as having been made as a result of the coercive environment of his job performance review process.

[MetroRider2007]

So, when is the public hearing? I am already planning a sick day.

By the way, does anyone else find it interesting that we are going to see a rate hike, yet we are not going to see an increase in security on the Metro? In accordance with the post left by alnyden (see below), I'm ready for a revolution and I'm ready to put my foot down by not honoring the crack honor system currently in place.

How many times do I have to "TAP" in order to get someone to check my ticket. Maybe if they figured that out, we woudn't have to pay more.

Comment by alnyden:

I am all for the hike, and I hope it goes into effect in July, as planned, when this city will likely be burning and hot as hell. perfect timing to tighten the screws even more on the poor and working class. the cops are still beating up and harrassing poor people of color, as usual, gas prices are still jacked up to fatten the pockets of oil company investors, ICE raids are terrorizing immigrant communities and families, little kids being held in concentration camps for immigrants, and now, poor folk can't even afford to get to their crappy, exploitative jobs to keep a bare minimum in their belly and keep this economy floating on its artificial bubble of cheap, expendable labor. sounds like the perfect recipe for civil unrest, rebellion, and revolution, to me!

See, I think the MTA is really a radical leftist organization just doing their best to foment revolution. VIVA LA MTA! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[zz ziled]

Look what effect the Gov's proposed cut will have on the proposed LA METRO FARE HIKE! Call or email Gov Arnold to tell him what you think about this here!

http://gov.ca.gov/site/contact-governor
---------------------------------------------------------
Transit officials argue against governor's budget cuts
BY Harrison Sheppard Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - Los Angeles officials and transit advocates fought Wednesday to restore more than $1 billion in cuts to public transportation in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget for 2007-08.

The governor, they said, is shortchanging public transit at a time when it is desperately needed in California amid rising gas prices and growing environmental concerns.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, for example, is considering fare hikes next year in part because it would lose at least $260 million in state funding under the governor's plan.

"Under the proposed state budget, Los Angeles County's public transit system would be severely and negatively impacted," Metro spokesman Matthew Raymond told legislators.

Raymond added that Metro is looking at an operating deficit of $108 million this year, and a total deficit of $1.8 billion over the next 10 years.

The Legislature held its first budget subcommittee hearing on the public transit budget Wednesday. More than a dozen advocates of public transit and representatives of local agencies, including the MTA, urged the committee to restore funding that Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting.

While the committee
Advertisement
Click Here!
did not take any votes, several members said they were concerned about the cuts and would consider restoring at least some of the money.

In his 2007-08 budget plan, Schwarzenegger has proposed redirecting to other state programs about $1.1 billion in funds that would normally be designated for public transit. Those include $627 million redirected to school busing; $340million for debt service on earlier transportation bonds; and $144 million for a program to transport recipients of social service programs.

Those programs, while transportation-related, were previously funded from other state agencies' budgets, such as schools and health services, not from transportation.

Much of the revenue that is being redirected is coming from excess gasoline tax revenues, known in budget parlance as "spillover," that are a result of higher gas prices.

Schwarzenegger made a similar proposal last year to shift the spillover, but the Legislature restored the money to the transit budget.

Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance argues that the spillover fluctuates wildly every year, based on gas prices, and should not be counted upon as a stable source of transit funding. The administration is looking to make the shift of spillover permanent.

Also, Finance officials say, the amount of spillover was over-estimated last year, and this year's figure reflects a compensation for over-spending.

Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer noted that the governor is increasing the budget for transit capital projects - even though he is decreasing funds for the operating budgets of local transit agencies.

Schwarzenegger also helped pass Proposition 1B last year which in coming years will provide more than $4 billion in bond financing for public transportation projects.

"The governor spearheaded Proposition 1B, which provides a significant amount of additional dollars for transit," Palmer said in a telephone interview. "The fact is under this governor's budget, transit projects in California will have a stable and growing source of revenue."

harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com

(916) 446-6723

[zz ziled]

CA: LA: Green Line Inter-modal PAX Transit Connection Planned to LAX but not MetroLink Depot!

In the eastern direction, the "Green Line" light rail is still ONE MILE shy of a second inter-modal PAX connection to the METROLINK Heavy Rail Line Depot. We need to demand that that mile of track be built-out also! -zz ziled
-------------------Article Follows------------------------------------------------
Lax

Metro Green Line extension to airport clears a hurdle

The effort to extend the Metro Green Line to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) cleared another hurdle Friday, March 23rd, when a Los Angeles City Council committee endorsed state legislation to create a Green Line Construction Authority.

The council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee voted to approve, in concept, Assemblyman Ted Lieu's legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 889, which would establish a new public agency to oversee the design and construction contracts to complete this leg of the Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) Green Line.

The committee also endorsed efforts by Lieu and Metro staff to amend the legislation by increasing local control of the new agency.

"This is an important moment in our efforts to finally get mass transit into LAX," said Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who has been championing the Green Line extension.

"Our campaign is moving and gaining strength and momentum."

The proposed agency would be modeled after the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the agency that is overseeing the Exposition light rail line project to connect downtown Los Angeles with Culver City, and perhaps eventually Santa Monica.

The authority would be charged with overseeing a two-mile-long rail segment that would include stations at the intersections of Aviation and Century Boulevards and Lincoln and Sepulveda Boulevards.

"Establishing a construction authority would jump-start funding and building the Green Line extension," Rosendahl said. "I am delighted to see that I have garnered the support of my colleagues for this important legislation."

Los Angeles City Councilman Greig Smith praised Rosendahl's efforts.

"This is long overdue," Smith said. "I am glad Councilmember Rosendahl has brought it forward."

Various community organizations and local transit advocates have also endorsed the proposed Green Line Authority.

In 1994, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved an EIR/EIS (Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement) to construct a Metro Green line extension to LAX and beyond.

But due to funding constraints, the extension was never constructed. Currently, Los Angeles World Airports is developing an updated master plan that includes an analysis of extending the Green Line to LAX.

Earlier this year, Rosendahl, Lieu, State Senator Jenny Oropeza and Congresswoman Jane Harman formed the Green Line Coalition to advocate for the Green Line rail extension. Since its inception, over 25 other elected officials have endorsed the coalition's effort.

[Source: The Argonaut Newspaper: http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2007/03/29/news_-_features/lax/1lax.txt

[Ziled Group]

Did you know that Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed drastic cuts to public transit in his 2007-08 budget?

I am a member of GINITS-PAX, a grassroots movement which supports Globally Integrated Networked Interoperable Transport Systems for Passenger Transit. GINITS-PAX wants Mass Public Transit to be intermodal, harmonized, safe and affordable and to use 21st Century technology solutions.

The reality is, that In a globalized world, INTER-MODAL PASSENGER Mass Public Transit planning is a NATIONAL issue not just a local or CALIFORNIA one.

LA Metro should be not raising fares, but working with other other CA and Federal Agencies and Transport Authorities to harmonize costs and meet needs of passengers. The States and regions can not work on mass public transit in alone, the federal government can not abdicate its role as it has for the past twenty five years.

As taxpayers, we need to be demanding Integrated, harmonized public intermodal mass transit as a national issue. Inter-modal means, a passenger can expect to use multiple forms of integrated and harmonized mass public and private transit infrastructure to reach one's final destination.

Just as with freight, Bus lines, light-rail lines, heavy rail lines, air ports, ferry terminals, bicycle lanes and automobile highways are planned and integrated and work together in harmony as a HOLISTIC US MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM to move people safely and efficiently.

We must have leadership at the Federal Level, and we must demand that State and local TRANSIT and TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES learn to collaborate and work together---this does not happen today but it must happen in the future and as partnerships are formed Inspector Generals must be created to audit and oversee these systems.

For those that are interested in learning more. about these issue, I invite you to read what is posted on these issues at Yahoo's Commuter Rail/ Inter-modal PAX Transit Message Group--it is free to anyone with access to a yahoo e-mail account.

Below is an article which is from the group's post; it is about the Governor's planned cuts :

March 30, 2007. Topic: Transportation/Transit

California Transit Cuts Would Increase Congestion and Climate Change Problems for the State

By Carli Payne
Transportation Program Director
Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC)

Just two months after Californians voted in favor of more mass transit optionsas part of Prop 1B, the transportation bond, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed drastic cuts to public transit in his 2007-08 budget.

His proposed budget would raid more than $1.1billion from public transit, taking away more than half of state transit funding. Cuts in funding would lead to reduced service and fare increases, reduced access to jobs, education, and services, more traffic congestion, and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Elements of the Governor’s budget:
• Cut $700 million in new capital investments
• Cut $411 in funding for transit operations, giving transit operations 70% less than this year.
• Use Prop 1B dollars to backfill redirected capital funds. This subverts the will of the voters, who wanted funding for more transit, not less.
• Permanently shift gas tax “Spillover,” currently dedicated to public transit, to highway rehabilitation projects.

California depends on public transit to reduce traffic congestion, cut pollution, and keep us moving. A recent study shows that if transit passengers were part of the general traffic flow, congestion would increase by 27%. And, as California prepares to add 13 million more people over the next 25 years, we need quality public transit to ensure mobility and enable more cars to stay off the roads.

Transportation accounts for 41% of the California’s greenhouse gas emissions. We can’t meet the aggressive goals of AB 32 without funding for quality public transit systems. The good news is that our legislators can reject these cuts, and lay the ground work for stable transit funding in the future.

On Wednesday, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Transportation held an informational hearing on public transit. Many individuals testified against these cuts.

Environmental, social equity, and transit groups across the state are rallying. Here is what some have said in response to the budget proposed by the Governor:

“Cutting public transit would ignore the public’s clear frustration with growing traffic congestion and our desire to invest in more transportation options to meet our travel needs.” Emily Rusch, CALPIRG Advocate.

“Losing this funding will have devastating impacts on the daily lives of working people, senior citizens and high school students who have no other transportation options. Juliet Ellis, Executive Director of Urban Habitat in Oakland.

“The Older Women's League joins the voices of those who are alarmed by the cuts in funding for public transit. How are we going to avoid the dependence on automobiles if we have no alternatives in this fast moving society? We must make public transit available and easy to use if it is to become a viable alternative for driving on freeways.” Betty Perry, Public Policy Director for the Older Women's League of California.

“The misallocation of the spillover funds is like a giant game of ‘hide the salami’ from a starving lion. The governor's team continues to spin and misdirect these funds to prop up other worthy projects that have been traditionally paid from the general fund. Despite the governor's green proclamations, his budget team actions are completely disingenuous and will result in great harm to the transit using public who depend on healthy transit alternatives to get to work, school and health care." Bart Reed, Executive Director of The Transit Coalition in Los Angeles.

Carli Paine is the Transportation Program Director for the Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC). Before she worked for TALC, she was an Associate City Planner and an Assistant City Planner in the Bay Area. For more information on the proposed cuts and attempts to protect these funds for public transit visit the Transportation and Land Use Coalition site or contact Carli Paine at carli@transcoalition.org.

[alnyden]

8 dollars for a day pass? Are they insane?

[MAGON]

I am all for the hike, and I hope it goes into effect in July, as planned, when this city will likely be burning and hot as hell. perfect timing to tighten the screws even more on the poor and working class. the cops are still beating up and harrassing poor people of color, as usual, gas prices are still jacked up to fatten the pockets of oil company investors, ICE raids are terrorizing immigrant communities and families, little kids being held in concentration camps for immigrants, and now, poor folk can't even afford to get to their crappy, exploitative jobs to keep a bare minimum in their belly and keep this economy floating on its artificial bubble of cheap, expendable labor. sounds like the perfect recipe for civil unrest, rebellion, and revolution, to me!

See, I think the MTA is really a radical leftist organization just doing their best to foment revolution. VIVA LA MTA! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[celticluva]

I am against any fare increase. I fear that MTA is throwing out these big figures so that they can come in with lower figures and have it appear like they've made some concession and "listened" to the opposition from riders.

I am a public high school teacher. Most of my students ride MTA. I cannot begin to fathom the proposed increases. Imagine you're a parent with two children who ride MTA. As of July you'll be paying $90 a month for them to get their education! That's ridiculous. Never mind the fact that when the full fare increase comes into effect, the cost will rise to $150 a month!

This needs to be seen as a viciously racist attack on working people. Some parents will be forced to take on additional jobs to pay for this increase. This will mean that they are not at home helping their children with homework etc. Others will abandon MTA completely, preferring instead to buy an old hoopty ride for their child thereby increasing both traffic and pollution in this city.

This proposed increase will have dramatic implications in our city. I expect to see some leadership by Mayor Villaraigosa in voting against this proposal. He made three appointments to the MTA Board and needs to secure their votes in opposition as well as his own.

The globe trotting and governor's race-planning must take a back seat to taking care of working people's concerns in his own backyard.

[Michael L]

Trafficbulldog:
I hope that in the future our biggest concern is all the people driving to the train station. I also hope that this station is at least within a couple of miles of their home. If this does become a problem building a parking garage taller or deeper or whatever really isn't as difficult as say widening the 405 for 1 lane. I am sure carpooling works for some people in their commute to work but I still would rather take the train. Rail doesn't work in this city yet because the MTA is doing one line at a time. They really need to do at least 5 lines right now before it become a viable alternative to driving. It just doesn't go to enough places. Buses are great but to get all the way across town during rush hour they are nothing less than dreadfull.

I think our elected officials should spend money on carpooling and I think it is a great thing for some people, but for most people that work in today's workplace (in los angeles) this won't work. For example, look at entertainment jobs, very very few people have exactly the same hours. What do you do if you have to stay late? What do you do if you have to get to work early? I would rather not be dependent or have others dependent on me. If there was a GOOD rail/bus system in LA then I could continue to enjoy my personal freedom to work on my own schedule. I would also find a less stressful lifestyle since I wouldn't have to find parking and what not. This all being said...the current MTA system does not offer this. Their are soooo many simple improvments that could be done that might make me able to accept this fee increas. Why is their no map at any of the bus stops? Is it impossible to create some sort of system that lets you know if you have already missed the bus? Is it too much to ask for buses to run later and more frequently? I really wish I could go out for a movie at night and not run the potential of waiting for 30-60 minutes for a bus.

My overall point is that buses are vital to this city but we need to have them suplemented with carpooling, telecommuting, HEAVY RAIL, and more metrolink. This is LA and I am proud to live here but there are a couple things that I am ashamed of. Our complete dependence on the automobile for one and the LA river.

MTA: If you are going to charge me NY prices then you better at the bare miniumum give me NY service. Please Please!!!! build me some rail. It is really the best possible deal when you look at where this city is headed (more density). We need to stop complaining about the upfront price tag and realizing that we are INVESTING and that all that money will not go to waste but building more freeways and continuing to rely on buses will.

[TrafficBulldog.org]

But Michael, without carpooling to the station , the parking lots are full and the trains will never get to reach a cost effective operational state.

Do you suppose that 1% of the money spent on rail could be spent on helping coordinate getting people to the station more efficiently?

We could easily say that rail is a failed experiment and it won't matter how much money is spent on it. It will never work..... But I don't have that belief. We should be looking at all options and finding a way for them to work together.

If we don't find a way to more efficiently work with the prevailing transportation method (read personal vehicles) then we will never get the air cleaned up.

If our elected official were not addicted to the 20% of tax revenue that comes from new vehicles...well then maybe we could get traffic fixed. I am OK with Prop A and Prop C taxes that go to pay part of MTA's budget. I just wish they were not addicted to it, much like our President accuses us of being "Addicted to oil".

Until someone addresses that problem, we will always have too many cars on the road.

Best.

http://trafficbulldog.org is a commuter advocacy group committed to helping people form carpools, eliminating chronic traffic congestion, cleaning the air we breathe and getting us half way to Kyoto all at the same time.

Please join the conversation at trafficbuldog.org

[Michael L]

Obviously Elena is affiliated with the BRU. Otherwise she wouldn't be so short sighted and trying to damage the transportation needs of EVERYONE in this city! Rail would benefit everyone, including people who currently ride the bus. Do you think anyone, whether they have to ride the bus or not, would be opposed to a shorter commute time? We need a world class rail system supplemented with a world class bus system NOW! The BRU has already hurt this city enough by being selfish enough to oppose rail. On top of that they honestly believe that building rail is racist. Is the El in Chicago racist? Is the NYC Subway racist? The BRU makes me so angry in that they are emblematic of the selfishnes that has prevented this city from doing what it needs to do. The Wilshire line would have been compeltly built by now if it wasn't for people like the BRU.

The truth is that the MTA would save money in the long run if they had train service. Trains last longer so they don't need to be replaced as often. You don't need as many operators per person carried. The improved commute times would attract new riders. And the list goes on and many people on this blogs have laid out the advantages. I really want this city to be better and I think rail is a step in the right direction for all of our future.

[Elena Astilleros]

I read Jean's article about the fare increase. I thought it was missing a large portion on WHY there is a fare increase.

MTA wants to continue to operate and construct rail lines. These rail lines lead nowhere and do nothing more than provide pork to contractors and false accomplishments to the politicians "bringing" those rail lines to the community.

They do this by bleeding out the bus system and charging the riders.

Instead of cutting the Redline extension to the sea, or dropping the creation of the Expo line or ending the Gold line extension -- the MTA right away goes to grab their money from the riders.

Just explaining the specifics of the fare increase doesn't give texture to the real battle and the real decisions taking place at our transit agency.

[Elena Astilleros]

I oppose a fare hike. The idea that "its about time" for a fare increase falls apart when you consider that MTA is a federal agency receiving federal funds to provide transportation to the inhabitants of this city. This fare increase would force several thousand people out of riding the bus. And for what? A rail line that doesn't provide realistic transportation to anybody?

I live right near where the Expo line would be going through. I STILL wouldn't be able to use it for my transportation purposes.

In this city, with its million miles of sidewalk, the only form of transportation that makes sense and that is needed is buses.

MTA wants this to hurt ridership. They've been wanting to run the bus system to the ground for YEARS. They've already been cutting service: Every six months there a new group of service slashes. Oh yeah, and MTA has money. They just want to keep building rail, and they want bus riders to pay for it.

Bus riders are having to pay directly out of their own pockets for a rail system that doesn't serve them. When rail lines are put in, people have LONGER commutes. Because the bus lines that were cut to boost ridership for the rail lines were more EFFICIENT for the riders.

If it weren't for the BRU, who knows where the bus system would be. Would we even have one?

Right now the only way to fight this fare increase is to join the BRU's no fare hike campaign. MTA is going to have a fight on their hands, from the bus riding class representatives the Bus Riders Union.

[Donna Dawson]

Come on.. It's getting harder and harder to get to work as it is, now MTA wants to increase the fare, but their service is decling. How much more blood from a turnip are they trying to squeeze out of us? It is totally unfair, and I am not with it.

[Bill]

MTA is going to have a huge battle on their hands come this July. People are not going to sit back an d be exploited by this power mad money machine. Until they realize that travel is a necessity and that average people are not making six figures, those fare hikes will never stick. If they do impose those hikes they can GUARANTEE LOSING CUSTOMERS which will hurt them deeply. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Jon]

It's a disgrace that the mismanagement on several fronts leads to a sharp increase that they are proposing. The plan is to raise the monthly pass to $120 in less than two years. That has to be a joke. Sure, they need the money, but this must raise issues of accountability when it comes to managing this agency (the region's most important for the next several generations). And the bus riders' union is also to blame for the gridlock. MTA needs more revenue, but $120 per month? Please. I'm fine with raising the rates, if they put a some of that money into SUBWAY ENFORCEMENT. Make sure everyone is a paying customer if you're going to raise these rates. No more free rides. Bye bye honor system.

[robert d]

Working in Lancaster, I used to take the Metrolink train to Union Station, and then catch a bus to Arcadia to visit relatives on Saturday. What amazed me was that the Metrolink train, while slow, was immaculately clean, quiet, and comfortable. The bus was the worst ride I've ever had, and we're talking about bus rides I've taken in at least 15 cities in the US, since I worked in construction, and traveled frequently. The bus had diesel fumes for air, hard seats, was certainly running without much of a muffler, and of course, squealing brakes. Seems like the suburbs in LA "get the goldmine, and the inner city gets the shaft". And thanks to Jerry Reed.

[Scott Mercer]

We have not had a fare increase in 14 years, due to the interference of the liars at the Bus Riders Union (my opinion). You name me ANY other consumer product that has not gone up in price in 14 years, I've got a blue ribbon for you.

These fare hikes must be done. The fares have been artificially low for a while now. I won't stop riding. I don't believe ridership will drop that much. But we'll see.

[Sodha]

Hey...w/o the fare hike, we'd lose service on the Expo Line or Gold Line, what would you prefer? (http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=fares&action=display&thread=1174703362)

W/o the fare hike the MTA will cut bus routes (refer to the MTA website for service cuts effective July). We have to be REASONABLE. The MTA is a business still, they need cash, just as much as any other agency. W/o cash, how do they pay their staff, drivers, and GAS (remember buses need gas just like private automobiles), etc...). BTW, for the person who said it costs $120/gas per month to drive, did you factor in car insurance and the cost of purchasing a car???? An MTA pass is still a FANTASTIC DEAL. Please be realistic. Either gov. Schwarzenegger gives us back our spillover funds (ironically $1.1 billion) or we have a tax increase, which needs a 67% approval in L.A. county. What's the most REALISTIC approach? I'm sorry....but this is long overdue and MUCH NEEDED.

[Bart Reed]

The Metro Board of Directors to Metro CEO Roger Snoble in his performance review that he had to solve the Structural Deficit NOW. So, the fare adjustment proposal that has been issued is a "No Service Cut" version. Some of the alternatives that have been floating around include 10% to 25% service cuts.

With a $1 Billion deficit and the lack of ability to run either the East L.A. Gold Line or the Expo Line, some type of action had to be taken.

Will there be some type of political compromise? Maybe. But, with the lack of understanding of basic economics from our elected officials, I am sure something weird may be enacted.

As much as many are used to almost free transit, that $75 works out to $3.40 / workday as compared to the new $5 daypass.

Even the $120 monthly pass works out to $5.45 / workday as compared to the new $8 daypass and the $2 base fare.

Anyway you look at it, you can still pay $3.25 for a gallon of gas. Many easily pay $60 / week or more for gas, so in perspective the increase while steep, isn't much compared when you look at everything else.

I see it being a choice between cutting of more service and a lot of cutting versus paying $ .40 for every $1 of service, while the subsidy is $ .60 out of every $1 you pay. Right now riders only pay $ .24 out of every $1, so the ride is almost free.

Is this a bad thing? Well, the 25% service reduction scenario is a lot worse and will really kill transit.