Metrolink fare hike

Metrolink fares are already pretty expensive (monthly passes nearing $300). But they could rise even more under a plan under discussion:

Metrolink staff is recommending that fares be increased 3.5 percent on July 1, and another 3.5 percent in July 2008 and again in July 2009. The proposed increases are part of a 10-year fare restructuring plan approved by Metrolink officials in 2004. The Metrolink Board of Directors had been expected to vote on the plan today, but extended the public comment period until May 11. Under the plan, Metrolink could generate an additional $2.17 million in revenue in fiscal year 2007-2008. Metrolink offers 50,000 different fares based on a rider’s age and destination. Passengers who want to see how their fare would change under the proposal can log onto www.metrolinktrains.com and use the online proposed fare calculator. (From CNS)

What do you think? Hit COMMENT and speak out!

Comments

[calwatch]

Bart, Metrolink is a premium service in that they charge premium fares for something that express buses do just as well. Look at the crowds of people getting on AVTA, Santa Clarita Transit, LADOT (well, not so much), or Foothill Transit every afternoon, saving themselves 20-40% while sacrificing a bit of time and reliability (and costing the taxpayers less in subsidy, mind you, although they don't run weekend service, unlike Metrolink, which stupidly is EXPANDING weekend service on the AV Line while MTA is in a budget deficit, and MTA pays the bills). If the express bus is Southwest Airlines, Metrolink is JetBlue.

I think the fare increase, given that this is their past practice, is OK, although they shouldn't be surprised when folks decide to carpool or take express buses. Our express bus network is really forgotten by a lot of people, but thanks to carpool lanes, they are often just as fast as Metrolink, especially when you consider the transfers required at Union Station to get anywhere useful.

[Neal Dehaven]

I think fares should be reduced, to increase ridership, not increased.

I was surprised to learn from Bart Reed (April 29, above) that more than 100 new cars are on order. It makes great bereaucratic news that now is the time to increase fares (which will naturally reduce ridership).

Maybe there is something to be said for Diane Rabinowitz’s (above, April 28) opinion, copied here: Costs of free public transport will be offset by reduced cost of road construction and maintenance, as well as reduced cost of medical care for pollution induced disease (which by the way, disproportionately affects children and the elderly).

Perhaps it would makes sense to offer Metrolink free rides for a one-year period. Let’s see if ridership increases so much that I can drive at a 40 MPH average during rush hours. If so, just think, maybe new freeway planning could be postponed or cancelled.

[Bart Reed]

Where is it said that Metrolink is supposed to be a premium service? It is just a way to move a lot of folks over long distances at a sometimes faster pace than driving. It is a Southwest Airlines version of travel without the peanuts or soda.

Metrolink is about choice. You don't have to drive the long distances. Most Metrolink riders will tell you about their $300 to $500 / month gas bills. Plus the other operating costs like tires and maintenance. A newer car costs between $ .52 and $ .78 mile to operate and then you have to pay for parking.

If you find dirty bathrooms tell the conductor. Don't be a brick. You can also send an email to Metrolink HQ. They actually pay attention.

As for the seat situation, Metrolink has over 100 new cars on order. By 2009-10, there will be more space for a growing ridership.

I saw the fare increase comments from the public. Most folks wanted more service, but don't like paying more. Pretty normal. As for the public showing up at the fare hearings on Friday? Well, no one came. It was cancelled so late that there was really no notice of the postponement.

The fare increase is fair. The service response is usually good and like any other organization, they learn lessons so they can respond better the next time there is a problem.

[Diane Rabinowitz]

Whether or not the law allows fare increase, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that if you eliminate fares for public transportation, people will leave their cars in droves.

What is the goal after all: to reduce traffic tie ups, reduce travel time, reduce air pollution. Logic tells you that raising the fare will do the opposite, and increase the burden on the only people who currently depend on public transport--students, the poor, the elderly. When will the "suits" ever have enough? Won't they ever get tired of luxuriating on the backs of downtrodden folks?

When more people are attracted to taking public transportation, it will truly become public--accessible for all. Routes will be adjusted, schedules will be adjusted so that public transportation will become a viable delivery system that helps people get to where they want to go.

Costs of free public transport will be offset by reduced cost of road construction and maintenance, as well as reduced cost of medical care for pollution induced disease (which by the way, disproportionately affects children and the elderly).

[Quinten Arthor Keltz]

Fare Story Incorrect

"The only fare increase the judge allowed during the decade-long decree was a modest increase in weekly, monthly and semi-monthly passes. Ridership dropped, from 430 million riders in 2003 to 394 million in 2004."

The judge "allowed" nothing (the fare portion of the agreement expired)
The increase was 22% on Monthly Passes (hardly modest)
They eliminated transfers (basically doubling the cash fare)
There was a 35-day strike in 2004 (accounting for the drop in ridership)
The fare increase happened after the strike - and since the "modest increase" ridership has increased 20% - which undermines your entire story.

There needs to be a better job of reporting. This is a critical issue and the story was incredibly irresponsible.

[calwatch]

On the other hand, they are supposed to be a premium service, so they charge premium fares. It's like comparing a Lexus to a Toyota, in a way, as you could take a express bus between many of the same destinations that Metrolink serves for about the same amount of time but at a 20-40% savings. The annoying thing is that they are a premium service, but you can't find seats sometimes, train bathrooms are dirty, fare machines are confusing, and information provided when there is a delay is virtually nonexistent.