MTA fare hike: Doing the math

As the fare hike battle (a proposed increase from $1.25 to $2 a ride) heats up, MTA Chief Roger Snoble is saying there is nothing else left to cut. The Times' Jean Guccione reports, however, that with the big hike in fares will likely come more cuts in services:

Passengers, on average, pay 58 cents per ride, an MTA calculation based on the larger number of riders who use monthly and other discounted passes. Snoble estimates that next year it will cost $2.50 per ride to operate the buses and trains. In recent months, ridership has increased, gently boosting revenue, he said. The MTA also is preparing to cut $10 million in services as part of its semiannual service adjustment. Last year, the transit agency balanced its operating budget by cutting administrative costs and increasing revenue by selling more advertising on buses and in subway stations.

What do you think? Are there other alternatives besides raising fares? Hit the COMMENT button and join the debate!

Comments

[Rick]

From what I have read and seen, such a dramatic increase in fares will surely prove to be a disaster for everyone involved.

Let's consider the Las Vegas monorail. Ridership has plummeted, and the current $5 fare (supposedly necessary to maintain operations) is even further lowering ridership rates.

The Las Vegas monorail is a badly-designed system that can't afford to keep fares so steep. Los Angeles Metro is almost in the same category. Long ago in history, L.A. had GREAT public transportation, but aggressive car companies and other political issues have caused the system today to become severely fragmented and almost unusable for many commuters (have you tried to get to downtown from the valley, or get to the valley from santa monica, lately?).

Such a poorly-operating system cannot afford to dramatically increase fares; it will turn away any prospective riders and completely financially devastate current riders.

What we need is a more reasonable, regulated financial plan that gradually increases the fare at a rate that is affordable for everyone.

[Alexander Friedman]

Whereas I agree that a modest fair hike may be necessary - in order to preserve existing service and to create new rail lines (subway, light rail),
raising fares to as much as $8.00 (day pass) or $120 (monthly pass) is OUTRAGEOUS!!
Because currently the bus and rail service is not worth that much money! Paying $5.00 for a New York day pass is one thing (New York does offer reliable and fast service!), but in Los Angeles it is shameful to charge so much money for the service that is unreliable!
It will take time to build new rail lines and to improve existing bus service, so we have to be patient. But MTA should not impose major fares UNTIL the service is improved! Otherwise, MTA could be headed for a biggest drop in ridership in L.A. history.

[Scott Mercer]

It has to de done, though the amount of the raise is perhaps too steep and should be phased in a little more slowly over more than 2 years.

Let's see, has the cost of operating your car NOT gone up over the past 14 years? Are you paying less now for car payments, gas or auto insurance than you were in 1993? Didn't think so.

MTA has a ton of non-discretionary riders. Ridership will not go down that much.

[Pancho]

Californians can't afford the car as the primary mode of transportation anymore. We should make mass transit as affordable as possible. Los Angeles county could raise around 760 million dollars per year(based on Prop C revenue listed at MTA site) through a half cent increase in the sales tax.

Additionally, Californians could raise billions for mass transit and other transportation necessities through a small increase in the gasoline tax.

Of course, advertising opportunities, other funding options, and some fare hikes should be persued, but the proposed hikes are outrageous, and seem to be irrational, with no vision for improving society or advancing a greater goal. Sure, Chicago and New York riders pay more, but they also have a far better product.

What is additionally disappointing are the proposed service cuts. We will continue to have substandard mass transit, bad traffic, and an exorbitantly expensive transportation model as long as people continue to make themselves subservient to the irrational and impractical position of conservative white people of being against any and all tax increases.

[calwatch]

Let's please stop the canard that our fares are lower than that of every other city, please. MTA is at the median on the base fare and its monthly pass is actually high. No one can say that MTA's service is comparable to Chicago or New York, or even Philadelphia or Boston. Rather, our peers are more like Seattle, Phoenix, Dallas, and Las Vegas, which have fares slightly higher but monthly passes lower than MTA.

[calwatch]

Actually, the fare hike will drive cuts in services, resulting in a "death spiral" that will paradoxically not help matters any. The experience of VTA in San Jose (Santa Clara County) is instructive: after fare increases of 60% over five years and service cuts of 20%, to obtain a stated farebox recovery goal of 20%, they only achieved 13%. The reasons? Ridership fled the system as fare increase after fare increase (VTA has some of the highest fares in the state) drove people off the bus, which resulted in service cuts, and fare increases, and so forth. A $2 fare will not improve farebox recovery at all. Instead, you will see more of the "informal transportation" networks like gypsy cabs, already prominent in many Latino communities, become more dominant.

VTA info: http://www.transcoalition.org/c/sus_vta/vta.html

[Matt]

Roger Snoble is not the CEO of Metrolink, nor is he one of its Board members. The CEO of Metrolink is David Solow. Metrolink is a separate public agency administered by a five county Joint Powers Authority with representatives of LA, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties on its board of directors. As for doing the math for fares in L.A., the cost of everything has gone up, and LACMTA (Metro), has held back its fares for long enough. Its current fares are on par with transit systems in Kentucky and Tennesee, lower than ever other major US city, and most large cities in California. San Diego = $2.00, Oakland = $1.75, San Jose = $1.75. As for service changes - it only smart to put service where demand demonstrates need while balancing resources with lifeline services like owl/24 hour service.

[Christopher Neal Wyatt]

While MTA does an admirable job of transporting millions every day, the fact is, the overall share of trips in the L.A. region using MTA is abysmally small. Raising fares can only have one effect, and that is reducing ridership. Therefore, it is important that MTA seek additional ways of raising revenue.

Here are some suggestions for raising revenue quickly:

1.) Sell air rights over MTA Park-N-Rides to residential developers. This could potentially create thousands of affordable housing units within extremely close proximity of transit, thus increasing ridership.

2.) Sell Wi-Fi on area busses, trains, and platforms. This would greatly increase the attraction of using MTA, because riders could accomplish online tasks while riding. MTA could make more money by charging riders directly for the service- as is done at Starbucks- or could make the wi-fi free, which would maximize access, and turn a profit by selling advertising over the wi-fi network.

There are those who will say that this idea is absurd, because busses and trains are almost always too cramped to use a laptop computer; and while this is true, it is also true that a new generation of hand-held internet devices is now entering the market (i.e., the Apple iPhone) which would allow people to surf the web from anywhere, even while standing in a cramped space.

3.) Establish vending operations on MTA platforms. Because the wait time between trains is frequently very long, those waiting on the platform are a captive audience. Imagine if you were able, while waiting, to buy stamps, pick up a jug of milk, or even a pack of cigarettes, directly on the platform. This would save passengers time, and bring additional revenue to MTA.

All of these suggestions are short-term funding solutions. In the long term, in order to remain competitive, MTA must make long-term captial impovements to thier system. Some of the many problems, which are drastically effecting ridership, include: too few trains; poorly designed stations; and unreliable service.

In order to solve these problems, a substantial outlay of capital will be required; therefore, MTA must be able to get more creative in it's business strategy. Simply relying on fare revenue to turn a profit has never worked, for the same reasons that building the interstate highway system has, in and of itself, never 'turned a profit' for the Feds; nevertheless, the access provided by these networks to new customers, markets, and services, will always be where the real money is. Building an effective transit network is merely a means to that end.

-Christopher Neal Wyatt

[William Isenberg]

The first thing to cut is Snoble's salary or better yet, let him go.

He got a big raise AFTER the horrific train wreck near Glendale caused by Metrolink trains that run BACKWARDS and are easily derailed.

Get somebody with a brain, please.