Should we be lowering bus fares?

Have L.A. transit users been spoiled all these years? MTA officials tell the DN that the hefty proposed fare increases (to $2 a ride) would simply bring L.A. up to the fares already charged by other cities:

MTA officials said the fare hikes will bring those in Los Angeles in line with those in other major cities. In New York, for instance, a one-way bus or subway ride costs $2, while a day pass costs $7 and a monthly pass costs $76. And commuters in Chicago pay $2 for a one-way ride, $5 for a day pass and $75 for a monthly ticket.

Of course, we've talked about the idea (proposed by SF Mayor Gavin Newsom and others) to encourage transit use by offering free rides. (San Francisco's adult fare is $1.50). Does raising fares discourage people from taking mass transit? That's what some are saying.

What do you think? Hit the COMMENT button and speak out!

Comments

[JP]

Public aversion to LA Metro busses is not due to fair prices. If taking the bus was actually faster than private car, instead of 1.5 to 2 times longer, then they would be much more popular.

[calwatch]

The solution for BRU fantasy land believers should be to go to Austin, Texas, where fares are 50 cents and the monthly pass is an unbelievably low $10. Ridership is actually dropping, because the bus system has no money to operate. Location coverage is poor. Important cities aren't being served. And they have a 1% sales tax that goes all to transit. Low fares are not a substitute for a well run service that goes where people need to go.

[Drayton]

There is something misleading Metro's public statement, and it has to do with how it chooses to term "one-way fares". While in L.A. a "one-way fare" is still cheaper than almost any other transit system, it is rare, surprisingly enough, that a "one-way fare" will actually get you where you want to go.

In New York, for example, it is true that a "one-way fare" costs $2.00. However, the majority of $2.00 rides allow for transfers from bus to bus or bus to subway, and of course all rides within the subway system allow unlimited transfers to and from all lines. In Los Angeles, riders must pay each time they board a bus or change lines on the underground metro, which significantly changes the reality of the fare structure. As the layout of the city and its metro system ensures that many, or even most, destinations cannot be reached by a single train or bus line, a "one-way" fare in LA actually means that riders only get as far as their next transfer point. Understood in this light, the origin-to-destination price, presuming an average of one transfer per trip, is better understood $2.50, not the $2.00 that the LA Metro claims. This is actually *higher* than the price in New York.

The fact is that, despite its self-promotion as the "Best in America", the LA Metro system is actually a rather frustrating piece of work: inefficient, overcrowded, and on average slower than driving. One of the few claims that it is able to make to appeal to drivers is that, on average, any trip over a few miles will still be cheaper than driving, particularly if one factors in the cost of parking. To raise fares will only serve to apply further financial pressure on the people whose only transport option is the MTA - which in most cases would constitute a "poor tax" - while alienating the people who have cars but prefer not to drive them when the Metro presents a viable alternative.

The trouble with mass transit is that, like most public-oriented institutions in the private marketplace, it is notoriously difficult to run well, affordably, and at the same time turn a profit. But then mass transit is not meant to be a for-profit venture, it is meant to be a fundamental provision of the city, one of the major backbones of the public infrastructure. It is meant to make the city run, and to provide the entire populace - including those who never use it - with a higher quality of life. Rather than raising fares and cutting back service, Metro should be doing the opposite: running more trains and buses (the "12 Minute Map" is a joke - an "8 Minute Map" would more realistically approach the transport needs of this city); increasing the cleanliness and overall quality of the service; and doing it at a reduced price, so as to encourage ridership.

No one asks how a highway will pay for itself. It is time that we stop asking the question of public transport.

[Pancho]

Raising MTA fares as recently proposed will give people an incentive to drive, increasing traffic congestion. It's ironic that a mass transit agency feels compelled to do this.

I suggest a series of better questions to ask are, Should LA County increase it's sales tax to fund mass transit? A half cent increase has the potential to boost the MTA budget by roughly 25%.

Should the state of California increase it's gasoline tax in order to fund mass transit?

Should vehicle licensing fees be increased to fund mass transit?

Should counties be legally allowed to increase their local tax on gasoline to fund mass transit?

These actions have the greatest potential to reduce traffic, reduce petroleum consumption, improve air quality, and improve the economy.

Can the state of California continue to afford the car as the primary mode of transportation?

So how about it L.A. Times? Bloggers? Editors of the Bottleneck Blog? Does the L.A. Times have the balls to suggest the logical? That we need to transform our transportation system and that taxes are not inherently evil, but can be useful and beneficial.