Mayor's fare war

The mayor now has his own -- more modest -- MTA fare hike plan. The Times Steve Hymon and Duke Helfand report "Villaraigosa offered his plan as part of a larger strategy to address the agency's estimated $104-million deficit for the coming fiscal year, a figure that Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials fear could balloon without new revenue." Here are details:

-Cash fares would remain untouched at $1.25.

-Other prices would rise about 5% annually to keep up with labor and fuel expenses.

-Day passes would rise from its current level of $3 to $3.31 in 2009 — compared with MTA's proposal of a hike to $8 in that span.

-Monthly passes would increase from $52 to $57.33 in 2009, far less than the MTA proposal of reaching $120 by that year

Comments

[Marcus]

Matt, please stop pretending that just because you read several newspapers a day, the bus riders do too. Has there been coverage in Spanish? (The vast majority of MTA bus riders are Hispanic, and most of them speak English as a second language, if at all) The Bus Riders Union doesn't hit the suburban areas well.

You know what, I have an idea. We should shut down the MTA Library. The library is taking up space and UCLA or USC could do a better job with the collection. Metro is one of the few transit agencies with a library, and I'm sure the employees there could be used elsewhere. Times are tough, and nonessential items need to be shuttered. Giveaways like Bike To Work Day, extra things like the Metro Library and most of the PR department, and much of the service can be contracted out too.

[rY.]

Why such odd cent figures in the Mayor's proposal? Is he expecting day-riders to always cary thirty-ONE cents in exact change, or is his proposal counting on extra revenue by most people "rounding up" to a quarter and a dime?

[Matt]

People who ride the bus have limited internet access? Everyone has access to the internet via the computers in every county (over 100 branches) and city public library (over 70 branches). Our taxes pay for it, go use it. And claims of "last minute" notification are just not true. It may be last minute for you, but the BRU, who claims to represent all bus riders, had it posted on their website a full month before Metro. Maybe someone from the BRU would like to explain how that happened. Here's their chronology: http://www.busridersunion.org/engli/WhatsNew/news.htm If they really do speak for all bus riders, then riders got at least 60 days advance notice in detail. In general, the Daily News first published a story April 10, 2006 "MTA Warns of Fare Hikes", a full year in advance. No internet access, taken by surprise? Not even close to true. As for the magnatude of the changes, yes, in certain categories, it is big. At the end of the all of this BS, it all comes down to how much subsidy is going to go into this service. It was 100% paid from farebox revenues alone from 1958 to 1973, and since other subsidies were introduced, farebox recovery has fallen every year to the 24% it is today. Raise taxes on everyone to pay for it? Raise fares on those who use transit? There is a bigger issue here than just the fare alone.

[Sheryl]

I've personally spent over a hundred bucks on printer cartridges, printing and passing out flyers on every bus I ride, detailing the fare hikes and the dates of all the fare forums in ADDITION to the public hearing over the few weeks, ever since the proposal was first posted on Metro's website.

(Which shouldn't be allowed to serve as public notice, given that at least half the people who RIDE the bus have limited internet access, if they have it at all.)

And even THIS MORNING, the part time driver of the bus that stops on the corner nearest me had NEVER HEARD ABOUT THESE FARE HIKES.

Metro's not only going to great lengths to try to keep the details of these hikes as quiet as possible (and the media appears to agree with their tactic), they're not even COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR DRIVERS EFFECTIVELY.

You know, I commented at one meeting I went to that I wondered if the 60-odd percent fare hikes were settled on because of Metro's 60-some percentage on-time statistics.

I wonder if they'll only post the fare increases on 60-some percent of the buses.

[BeyondTheTalk]

Kudos to Sheryl for recognizing shameless political tactics and taking time to share her objective analysis.

[mm]

I will agree that the MTA put out notices on their trains and buses way too close to the May 24th date, but I did see some of these brochures appear last week on the trains.

If you are concerned that people don't know about what is going on, why don't you talk to people on the trains, buses, station platforms and bus stops and let them know! Let them know what they can do to express their opinion about the proposed fare increases and give them facts as the MTA isn't going to listen to people saying "Don't increase the prices. I don't want to pay". I encountered papers with the proposed prices posted on bus stops all the way back in March, which is when I first found out about the fares. I don't know who posted them, but they were there on bus stop shelters near the starting line of the LA Marathon in the North Hollywood/Studio City area on the day of the marathon.

Also if you look at the brochures there is a small italicized blurb at the bottom of one of the sections that mentions the May 24 date, but it does not seem to encourage/give the impression that the metro riders themselves have any say in the matter.

[Sheryl]

DON'T KID YOURSELVES about AV's "proposal." It's nothing but smoke and mirrors, and that lying POS knows it. Thank God he's not MY mayor.

Here's what's really going on.

METRO has finally--just 3 days before the formal public hearing on May 24--put their fancy, slick version of the fare increases on SOME bus lines--I regularly take 3 buses from the corner nearest my house, and I've only seen this "why we had to raise our fares" slick in the information boxes on the 20/21/720 buses on Wilshire--and this 'informational' publication makes NO MENTION whatsoever of any of the quote "fare forums", or the public hearing dates for the public to comment on. Do you believe that's an accident? I certainly don't.

This 'cost of living' proposal is just like every OTHER proposal Villaraigosa has put forward since his election--a pretty lie, told in the face of an insurmountable reality that he has no power to change.

Here's the patter: AR sees an issue that some vocal group iss angry about; he decides how best to manipulate their emotions for his personal gains; he jumps out with a "solution" that he knows damn good and well will NEVER make it thru any political process so he can claim he tried, and then shuffles the whole mess off onto someone else's plate, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ANYTHING HE COULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

He's done it about half a dozen times now--illegal immigrants, skid row clean up, schools, gangs, low-income housing, transit....HE'S NEVER DONE ANYTHING, PEOPLE, EXCEPT POLISH HIS IMAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is it that do-nothing pod-people like this keep getting elected to offices where we need people who actually know how to solve problems, and are willing and ready to do it?

As for the "leave the base fare at 1.25" crap, well, the reason Metro is ALREADY DOING THAT in Snoble's current proposal, at least until 2009, is because of their allocation formula, which is how they share out money with other transit agencies, and I quote from Metro's own Formula Allocation Procedure Special Provisions, copied from column one at http://www.metro.net/about_us/library/Formula%20Allocation%20Procedure_Special%20Provisions.pdf :

"...The law states that calculation for the
distribution of funds shall be based upon
transit performance data for bus
operations that covers the most recent year
for which audited data is available. Each
of those operator’s shares shall be
calculated as follows: 50% of the operator’s
vehicle service miles and 50% of the
operator’s passenger revenues DIVIDED BY ITS BASE CASH FARE." [capitals mine.]

If Metro increases their base fare, they have to SHARE MORE OF THE MONEY.

Neither the Snoble plan that's going to go forward, or this complete sham that Villaraigosa is throwing out there for political effect is about preserving a lowerer fare for riders. It's about keeping money out the of the hands of Santa Monica, Torrance, Foothill, Norwalk, Culver City, Long Beach, El Monte, LADOT and all the other municipal bus lines, until they can manage to pass a new FAP that uses some other calculaton factor, rather than the base fare.

The July 1, 2007 fare increases, including the $5 day pass, the more than tripling of the senior/disabled passes to $37.50, the more than doubling of k-12 student passes to $45 and the increase of the monthy Metro pass to $75 and the EZ pass to $95 are all going to be effective. Villaraigosa is stepping out in front of this 2 days before the Public Hearing because he knows that there's no way any other proposal is going to even get considered by the County Commissioners who have to pass this. His vote against the Snoble proposal would be a moot point, if he doesn’t abstain because he’s put an alterative on the table, and doesn’t want to be unfair (gag).

People are going to have to face the fact that this is happening and figure out how to cut their grocery bills to put their 3 kids back on the bus to school come September, and those cities who are currently giving a second subsidy to seniors are going to have to figure out what other programs to cut.

Businesses that subsidize public transit for their employees are going to have to pass the full costs--an additional $23 for a Metro pass, $37 for an EZ pass--thru to those employees, because nobody's HR department will have had time to BUDGET these increases, because Metro is springing them out of nowhere. And those employees, who would have been able to pay those costs out of pre-tax flex funds will have to pay it out of taxable income, because those flex funds can only be adjusted during a company's open enrollment periods--WHICH OCCUR IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY.

I'm not arguing that Metro doesn't need fare increases. After the total screwing over that Metro's budgets took from the BRU consent decree, I can accept that Metro is absolutely under the gun, and reasonable fare increases are inevitable.

However, increases over 18 months time of up to 500% in some categories are NOT reasonable; they require a hell of a lot of justification, and the numbers that I've been able to suss out of the website simply don't do it.

For one thing, according to what I can see, there are all KINDS of areas where Metro is STILL WASTING an absolute fortune.

What the hell does Metro need an ART department for?

A LANDSCAPING department?

Metro is contracting out BUS LINES all over the Valley and the South Bay to private bus companies because they claim it’s more cost effective—so exactly how is it more cost effective to have UNION gardeners on the Metro payroll than to hire a landscaping company??

What about electrical, painting, etc. departments? Is it REALLY more cost-effective for these people to be public employees, or would it be more cost effective for these functions to be outsourced to the private sector?

If all these county employees are more cost effective, fine—but ARE THEY?? Before you jack the day pass fare 67%, I’d like to see proof that you’re using what you’re already getting effectively.

What about all this development on Metro property like the one Hollywood/Vine, or the Metro owned land near Hollywood/Highland and other rail stations? There HAVE to be some kind of ground lease agreements going on there—how much, and where’s the money going? Is it all going into the Gold Line? The Expo Line? If so, SAY SO.

AND WHY ISN’T THE TIMES ALL UP IN METRO’S GRILL OVER THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS?

[feistycougar]

The Mayor should raid the fat LAPD piggy bank just approved by the counsel for MTA budget woes. Less rubber bullets, batons and car chasing on our crowded streets beats the hell out of less seats on the bus . . . .

[Fred Camino]

He's obviously bending to the BRU's ludicrous anti-transit demands. Obviously Metro's proposed fare hikes are extreme (most likely on purpose), but a call to reduce service and increase debt to meet the BRU's demands is just insulting from the "subway mayor". There are more reasonable fare proposals that don't pander to the racist and backwards demands of the BRU. Check out SO.CA.TA. (http://socata.net/) and MetroRiderLA (http://metrorider.elhay.net/2007/04/30/editorial-metroriderlas-fair-fare-proposal/) for more reasonable proposals.

[Kate]

This is a million times better than what the MTA had propsed. I'm someone who can afford a car (though nothing splashy or even relatively new) and depend on Metro to take mefrom the Valley to my job in West L.A.

Somehow I believe that someone on the MTA side of things is going to say Villaraigosa is being too optimistic, and the fare hike will be somewhere in the middle of what the MTA and Villaraigosa are proposing, hopefully leaning more toward Villaraigosa's proposal.

[Gregory A. Dobie]

Before the MTA raises fares, it ought to enforce the payment of fares by current riders. Presently, one can ride the Orange Line or the Red Line and almost never have to show proof of fare payment. The threat of a ticket is not effective enforcement. The MTA should also crack down on the reselling of day passes, an underground economy that allows more than one person to travel on the payment of one day's fare. And, the practice of people getting on the back entrances of buses, especially the extended buses now in use on many routes, without paying the fare should be stopped. The MTA, through poor regulation and enforcement, loses lots of money--why make law-abiding riders pay more to subsidize the lawbreakers? In other major cities, you can't ride unless you pay the fare--why is L.A. different?

[mm]

I don't really know what to say except that these are much more reasonable fare increases. We need to keep public transportation fares low to encourage usage.

When I was doing research I discovered than many of the "big cities" that the MTA is comparing their rates to may have higher priced daily passes, but their weekly and monthly passes are about the same as our current MTA weekly and monthly pass fares, not the proposed fares.