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

[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.

[Sal]

I only ride the bus on the occasions when it will save me money and I can afford to take 2-4 times as long getting there. The proposed rates will cut out any savings, and I'd probably stop considering public transit in LA as an option at any time. (I'm not even sure it's public at this point - every inch of the buses seem devoted to advertising, and those irritating commercial monitors inside are a major reasion I stay away).

I've come to the conclusion that the MTA is run by people who disdain public transit, and are doing whatever they can to destroy it.

[Hexodus]

I do have some issues with taking the bus, but I honestly do want it to work. I mean I want public transport in Los Angeles to take off.

However, in light of the proposed fare hike, I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

As it stands now, the travel time on any given bus is twice what it takes me to drive that distance. At least twice. And in terms of gas prices, the fare and the gas cost about the same. Well, now that they are looking to raise those fares, the bus will be the more expensive alternative(for me at least - YMMV).

But here is the real problem with new, higher fares: in the current price range, you can raise the fares a little. Raise the price a little, and people will grumble but they will still pay. You may lose a few riders, but the slightly higher price will more than cover that. OK, no problem so far.

Until you start really raising the prices. For instance, when you increase the price of the Day Pass from $3.00 to $5.00. At that point I would hypothesize that people will stop riding as the price for bus tickets equals or exceeds the price of the alternatives(filling up your gas tank, making payments on a cheap car).

And that is assuming that travel times are the same among all the given alternatives. If you count travel times(and assume that time has the value of the wages you could have earned had you not been riding the bus. Theoretical, but possible), then the bus starts to look really expensive.

And then MTA starts losing revenue as even people who currently have no choice but to ride the bus decide that its probably cheaper now to drive. And people who were lukewarm before(like me) completely write the idea off.

I really don't know their reasons for the price hike. I am not an expert, nor have I bothered to investigate what people are willing to pay for bus tickets. All I am saying is that these high ticket prices probably represent an inefficiency elsewhere in MTA's business that should be corrected - but not by raising the prices and killing your source of income...

[Will Campbell]

I dislike the financial impact such an increase is bound to have on those who depend on the MTA's services on a daily basis. Though I'm a strong proponent of alternative commute options I have the luxury of utilizing them out of choice and not necessity, so a $2 fare or a $5 day-pass isn't something I'm going to cheer about, but it's not something I'm going to moan about either -- especially after comparing the MTA base fare to those of other cities (such as Chicago and New York; both $2). To me it seems as if this rate hike is long overdue.

One thing that might soften the blow to riders' wallets is if the MTA would bring back the transfer option (previously 25 cents) it eliminated two or three years ago. Such an option would provide a reduced price point to passengers that must use two bus lines or a bus/rail combo.

[movielocke]

i spend 120$ a month on gas for my commute anyway, this is an excellent disincentive.

And since the pace of metro building rail is about a mile of rail every two years I imagine that by the time the bulid the painfully obvious rail line along the sepulveda corridor I'll either have moved to the valley or be at a completely different job. I'd love to ride the rail, I rode metro buses in college, I will never ride a bus to work, never never never never. The buses are so much worse than being stuck in gridlock for two hours, uggh.

The only negative experience I ever had with LA rail wasn't even on the train, it was having my ears blown out by 110 dB of noise waiting at a station for a Greenline transfer. Utterly awful, making the greenline even more undesirable than it already is (not directly connecting to lax, damn taxi union bribery/lobbying and whatnot).

[mm]

Riding public transportation in LA gives you the benefit of not having to deal with traffic most of the time, but it also comes at a huge cost to the riders. It takes me 2 to 4 times as long (on a good day) to get home from work using public transportation than it would to drive. I can't go anyplace late at night since the service stops running. Service simply does not go where I need it to go. I am not allowed to take my pets with me even though I pass by my vet every day while riding the train. As a result, I need to have a car to fill in those gaps. The train service I use now costs roughly the same amount of money as the gas it would take for me to get to work each day. It is a fair tradeoff. Increasing the price by 2 or 3(!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand the significance of this % of increase! This is huge! What if electrictiy or milk suddenly shot up to three times it's current price.) is a big deal, especially for those that ride the train because they cannot afford anything else.

I can't even tell you how many times I have encountered people on the trains bragging about not paying for the service. Why not increase the frequency and stops where tickets are checked by officers? You would get more people paying fines and maybe people would actually learn to pay for the service. I have had some days where my ticket was checked 4 times in one day. Most of the time though, I go for months without ever having someone check my ticket even though I usually ride during rush hours. There are certain stops where I know no one will ever check my ticket (or in the case of the red line, it's not even stop specific. I have had my ticket checked on the red line 4 times I think in 1.5 years of riding the train almost daily.)

So, along with the fair hike, are we going to get a good enough public transportation system that I no longer have to own a car? If so, I am fine with this fair hike. If not, I have serious issues with this and will consider no longer using this method of transportation. Right now I am thinking of the bike I could buy with the ticket fair saved in just 6 months or a year by not riding public transportation...

[Doheny]

Seriously, the service already sucks. If they are going to up the fares, they MUST drastically improve service options.

As an experiment, I tried taking public transit to work this week. By car, with traffic, my commute from the Westside to downtown usually takes 25-30 mintues. By "Rapid" bus in the morning, it took 75 minutes.

I can't tell you what the evening trip on the Rapid bus took, because it wasn't an option. The last Rapid bus on my route leaves downtown at 5:30pm. So those of us with jobs that require us to, you know, NOT clock out when at the stroke of 5pm, are SOL.

So, instead, I had to take two DASH buses and the Red line home. 95 minutes later, I strolled through my front door.

Needless to say, I abandoned my thoughts of regularly riding Metro to work.

I'm an East Coaster who has been taking public transit all of my life. I only bought a car last year when I moved to Los Angeles. I miss riding the subway to work. I find it much less stressful. But there is no way I am goign to slog through LA's transit mess AND pay more money for it.

[Michael L]

I will pay whatever they ask as long as they build more subways as quickly as possible. It is still a lot cheaper than taking my car. If you are going to charge NY prices then the MTA is going to have to improve service dramatically.

I don't think the price really matters that much in attempts to attract new riders. If you really want new riders you need to make taking Metro quicker than the alternative of driving. Only then will people get out of their cars. And, obviously the only real way to do this is with heavy rail.

[peg]

If there were turnstiles at metro stops more fares would be collected. I'm just thinking about beginning to use public transportation to commute and a fare increase is not attractive. Why not a "sale" incentive to increase ridership?
Or a better collection system to guarantee all riders are paying...