German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMassive fare hikes coming
Contributed by Wad on March 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
[tags]los angeles, metro, mta, fare[/tags]
Sit down before you read any further. Here are proposed bus fares through 2009:
Regular adult fares are going to become $2 in 2009.
Day passes are increasing to $5 in July and $8 in 2009.
Semi-monthly passes will be eliminated and monthly passes will be $75 in July and $120 in 2009. The EZ Pass almost doubles in price to $95 in July, and $140 by 2009.
Los Angeles Times Bottleneck Blog supplies this information.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Sniff. Free cars, free drivers, no taxes, and 40¢/gal gas with no insurance or registration or licensure. Cry me a river.
I am continually perplexed by the disjoint. Transit advocates complain about auto subsidies despite recieving many times greater subsidies themselves. Transit advocates insist upon high fuel taxes but not for transit vehicles.
Why do people who are complaining about “auto subsidies” also complain about reducing transit subsidies from 80% to 75%? Obviously is isn’t about subsidies as that would be hypocritical.
Rob has a point. And from a personal finance standpoint these increased fares are still more affordable than the private transportation alternative . If a monthly EZ Pass costs $140 your yearly transit costs will be $1680. Round that up to $2000 for Flexcar costs or what have you, you’re still almost $6,000 under the AAA average cost of car ownership at $7,967 a year (for a person driving a medium sedan 15,000 miles per year). Of course, you have to be completely car-free to really appreciate these savings. I just hope that the increased fares go to the continued improvement of the system.
Metro has a very good case for raising fares.
First, all of its expenses have increased. Labor is very organized and counts on better benefits and pay every year, and the 2000 and 2003 strikes proved Metro cannot win. Fuel costs have soared. And, Metro has expanded to 100 miles of fixed guideway rapid transit and over a dozen Rapid lines.
Plus, Metro’s fares are very low in relation to its peers, a very small group. Only two other agencies have larger bus fleets, and only five other agencies provide as many revenue service hours as Metro.
And this is not a “lower fares to increase ridership” issue, as Metro cannot absorb any more riders and will not make up enough through fares in the right places to see a benefit from it.
Looking at Metro’s budget, a fare increase is more than justified.
I disagree with a massive $2 increase at once, but instead it should be a rolling increase that ultimately stablizies at $2.
The pass prices in the end are going to be too high to be useful, but the intermediate prices around $75 are about right. At most, $100 should be the high price.
Fred is correct. The biggest “enemy” of transit may be transit users unwilling to pay enough.
A word of caution about the AAA figures, they are inflated as their 5 year cost of ownership assumes no residual value after 5 years for their calculations. As the average auto is almost 9 years old there is quite a bit of variation in “costs.”
EZ Passes come with a built-in bias as well. They “induce” additional transit useage with no subsequent increase in revenue and since by definition those uses are outside peak periods they disproportionately cost more to provide. What we need is a $100 monthly pass ($55/biweekly, etc.) and a 25¢ boarding fee. Everywhere. And I mean everywhere. This isn’t a burden but it is a way to capitate superusers.
For the record, I have no problem with any transit increased collections going solely to transit. I’d even support a shift to 10x contributions to transit capital funds for every dollar in excess of operations transit users wish to pay.
Finally, fare increases!!! This is a much anticipated need to increase service and expand Metro. It’s pathetic that suburbs like OC have a higher 1 way fare or even non-major cities like San Jose (I believe both are $1.75 for a 1 way trip). I’m hoping half of the increase goes towards a capital improvements account so we can expand service! I don’t think the MTA will lose many riders from this increase, it’s very very justified.
Attempting to make up a deficit created with over 10 years of deferred cost in just three is punitive to the users anyway you look at it.
$1.25 to $2 one-way: okay
$3 day pass to $5 day pass: okay
But going from $52 to $120 for a monthly in less than 2 years? You can’t tell me a lot of families wouldn’t consider this a serious hit.
Robert wrote:
EZ Passes come with a built-in bias as well. They “induce” additional transit useage with no subsequent increase in revenue and since by definition those uses are outside peak periods they disproportionately cost more to provide.
For one thing, the point of passes is to induce extra usage. I’m sure you knew that. Second, if an agency is providing off-peak service, those buses are going to run based on the agencies’ performance target. Metro’s is 30 passengers/hour. It’s when ridership produces a marginal cost (adding another bus), then inducement becomes a problem.
Second, it’s not the inducement of unlimited riding or “superusers” that hurts transit agencies. The problem is not monthly passes but transfers. Think about this. Riders agree to incur a significant out-of-pocket expense at a period in time in exchange for a benefit (unlimited rides within a certain timeframe). The transit agency gets the benefit of a massive cash flow. This does help an agency in accounts payable. Even if every user were to buy a monthly pass, if the agency can keep marginal costs in line it will run without a hitch.
Transfers, on the other hand, are the real leeches. Planners realize every transfer diminishes the value of the overall ride, so it compensates by making every additional ride cheaper. When Metro had transfers, the fare was $1.35 and a transfer was a quarter. One-bus riders paid $1.35, two-bus riders paid $0.80 ($1.60/2) and three-riders paid $0.62 ($1.85/3). Only the rare transit agency would go transferless (Boston is the largest), but the agency would then have to provide very low fares and passengers would be inconvenienced by having to have enough cash to pay every time they board a bus. This is where a pass comes in handy.
As for your capitation idea, let’s just say that we discussed this in la.transportation and I am calling your bluff, Dawg. I know why you said it, and I don’t want to see this thread turn into another “I Sold My Car” shouting match.
yeah, this is about the only glaringly obvious question mark about the plan. 120 does seem excessive in that it more than doubles the current rate, however the current rate is obscenely low. it’s funny how the BRU forced this for 10 years and now the people they’re trying to “help” are going to be blown away when they owe double in just 2 years. as for me, being transit dependent, $120 a month is still much cheaper than i was paying with a car (approx $250/month) no matter the weighted AAA statistics rob, and we all know from the previous heated debate wut year that car was.
When calculating the yearly cost of ridership(as FredCamino was so kind to do, above) I would think that you would also want to consider the riders’ lost wages as part of that cost. I know that it is theoretical, but for many riders the extra time spent on the bus could be time spent working, or that extra time could prevent them from taking a higher paying job farther away from major bus routes. At that point, these implicit costs are considerable.
A very simplistic(and probably deeply flawed) calculation might say that a worker loses ten hours of productive time per week. Let’s just say they can earn 8.00 an hour. 80.00 a week. 4160.00 a year.
I know my calculation above is pretty boneheaded, but I think it illustrates a point, that if a rider is losing even half that income as a result of riding the bus, then that rider would strongly consider a private car.
Sure, not all riders will be in this situation, but I would hazard to guess that a large number of them are.
It’s the monthly pass hike that makes my jaw hit the floor… the rest of the fares are in line with other transit agencies, but I have to think they’re going to retreat on that monthly pass. Monthly passes are supposed to be a bit cheaper than a month of round trips to work, and this is pushing the envelope. New York has $2 subway fares, but only charges $76 for a monthly pass. I don’t think that making their money on the backs of the commuters is the way to do this. Maybe later I’ll check other transit agencies to compare, but $120? That’s excessive, especially for a “regular” monthly pass rather than the EZ-Pass.
Hexodus, that’s implying that time spent in a car is productive, which I would argue it’s not. Many many hours are wasted in traffic, and many people voluntarily choose to live in the exurbs, with huge commutes from their homes to their jobs. Also many people in this category, when offered new jobs with higher pay, often have no problem relocating for that pay. Plus as we all know cars break down, they get in accidents, get flats, have to be serviced, etc… which all means lost work hours at some point which theoretically we should add into the overall cost of car ownership which would bring it above the AAA number.
Now if you are talking about the truly transit dependent (those who cannot afford a car no matter what and couldn’t afford to move near a higher paying job) then your theory becomes irrelevant. And when money is tight, every penny counts, and even with your rough calculation of $4160 a year spent on lost work because of public transit, the cost still comes out $1807 less than owning the mid sized sedan in the AAA example.
Using the Edmunds.com True Cost to Own calculator I found that even a relatively cheap used 2003 Kia Rio (upfront cost $4465) costs on average $6,000 per year to own.
Here’s another link to a guy who figured out the cost of ownership for his Ford Focus.
Gee, Rob Dawg, I didn’t notice anybody crying, except maybe YOU, complaining about whiny transit advocates that don’t exist.
Seems to me that you assumed that everyone was going to start crying and moaning about these increases. The only ones crying and complaining in my reading of the news coverage of this were those irrelevant idiots over at the Bus Riders Union. And frankly, it was due to their interference that the fares were kept so artificially low (you heard me) for the last ten years. We haven’t had a fare increase in 14 years. You show me ANY other consumer product that hasn’t had any price increase in that time and I will EAT MY MATTRESS.
I know these fares are too low by comparing them with other transit fares in comparably sized cities in the United States.
Any of us with a brain knew this was coming. Yeah, it sucks, but that’s life. As to the truly poverty stricken that cannot afford such fare increases, perhaps some accomodation can be made for them. But really, I support these increases and I will pay them. I won’t be happy about it, but these increases are fair and rational. Unfortunately, due to a looming budget deficit, I don’t think very much (if anything) of these increases can go toward capital improvements, though I wish that weren’t the case, obviously.
Other than the gratuitous personal insults which I will graciously ignore there seems to be consensus on the necessity for hikes and that those hikes need to “backfill” for an unusually long period of no increases.
The Census and BTS report that the average transit commute is twice as long as those via POV so any discussion of sitting in traffic being lost productivity goes double for transit on the whole. There will always be exceptions.
Zev made the point 1-2 years ago concerning the typical pass user noting that they were responsible for 251 boardings per month. $120 puts that at still less than 50¢. Sounds like a deal.
Chris, I’m surprised you remembered the la.trans disucussion but forgot the part where I explained the cost of administering a combined pass plus cash fare system cost more than the cash flow benefits which are extremely minimal in the first place. At least we remain in agreement that transfers are the bigger problem. I would add however that ransfers are a natural result of the last 20 years of railigon being practiced in the long range planning offices. So many formerly 1 or 2 seat ridea are now 3-4 seat one way trips. This is reflected in the NTD reporting of continued growth in boarding per one way trip over this period. This also goes a long way towards explaining the aPTAs reporting of the most ridership since 1959. It isn’t too hard when you count 1/3rd fewer people twice as often.
Oh and since we are talking increases we are also overdue for a gas tax hike. I’m thinking 5¢ federal and 4¢ State but would prefer 9¢ state and 3¢ Federal. The latter would also have the effect of steering more Federal money our way as matching funding is increasing in the allocation formula. This brings up the problem with the modest dare increases being proposed. As Scott note after he finishes misinterpreting my comments, even this level is not enough to close the gap of operational costs being taken on by the agressive rail expansions of the past. How was it put? Oh yes, “Passenger rail transit. The gift that keeps on taking.” Thanks, Tom Rubin.
I’m sorry, but there is no comparing the transit systems of D.C., Chicago, New York or Boston to Los Angeles. That is laughable on so many levels. Our Metro system isn’t worth an $8 day pass or a $120 monthly pass! That’s really the bottom line from the perspective of transit users and the general public.
No one gives a darn about that thing called farebox recovery, and frankly I’m tired of it being used like its the end-all be-all by transit advocates. Transit users pay taxes too. The subsidies that cover what their individual fares don’t, come from their pocket too. Why is that so conveniently ignored?
Additionally, our legislatures have far more flexibility in creating a progressive tax structure and altering current farebox recovery laws than your average Metro rider has in finding $70 more dollars for a bus pass for themselves and another $30 more dollars for each of their kid’s student passes.
So I implore transit advocates to add both the user’s perspective and overall perspective, and apply those at least as respectfully as the bureaucrat’s perspective.
Should there be fare increases? Absent major changes in the law - of course. Should those increases be overnight and punitive to transit riders - absolutely not. But as many have insinuated, these increases coupled with Metro Connections I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that Metro’s strategy is actually to decrease the number of Metro riders.
I don’t see any punitive fare structure here. Punitive would be requiring fare cards only or even heaven forfend fare passes only. Punitive would be reducing or eliimnating transfers. Punitive would be seeking peak fare pricing. No, what we have here is subsistence pricing. The new structure which will certainly be scaled back as that’s how therse things are done will merely minimize the growing disquiet with MTA performance and priorities. The customer is not really the rider but like in all cases the persons footing the bill.
Then there’s this:
Bus Riders Union vs. Reality #1571: Elasticity of Demand
http://snipurl.com/sap2
Peter McFerrin/Slightly Slack
Robert wrote:
Chris, I’m surprised you remembered the la.trans disucussion but forgot the part where I explained the cost of administering a combined pass plus cash fare system cost more than the cash flow benefits which are extremely minimal in the first place.
The overhead for administering both is relative to the complexity of the fare systems. Metro must account for different fare levels for both cash and passes (regular, senior, student), plus it administers the interagency transfer and now EZ Pass program.
At least we remain in agreement that transfers are the bigger problem. I would add however that ransfers are a natural result of the last 20 years of railigon being practiced in the long range planning offices.
Ahh, but here we have a problem. Our present route grid was implemented in 1981. It takes several years to research, plan and hold public hearings for those changes. So, the planning for the grid change was happening in the late 1970s.
Proposition A was passed in 1980. The first rail line did not open for another 10 years.
The bus routing change came first, and was a done deal regardless of the fate of Proposition A.
Moreover, the grid has still remained largely intact. If you want to split hairs, routes have changed, but what happened was a new route or a different route covered the street provided by an old line that did not exist.
RTD and Metro wanted to go to an Atlanta-like system where people would be forced onto a train by making it impossible to make a bus-bus trip. Public comment overwhelmingly favors keeping the grid we now have.
Going to a trunk-feeder system would have saved a ton of money. However, it would have destroyed the utility of the overall transit system. Plus, riders don’t want the added transfer, even if it’s to a train. That’s why we have both heavily used rail and bus lines close to the rail lines.
And the Blue Line’s ridership quadrupled, all the while still keeping parallel bus service intact. If every Blue Line rider just “forced” from a bus, you would have had 80,000 boardings back in 1990 and lines 51, 53, 55 and 60 would not exist today. All of these lines now have limited-stop service, which shows you heavy ridership still persists.
So many formerly 1 or 2 seat ridea are now 3-4 seat one way trips. This is reflected in the NTD reporting of continued growth in boarding per one way trip over this period. This also goes a long way towards explaining the aPTAs reporting of the most ridership since 1959. It isn’t too hard when you count 1/3rd fewer people twice as often.
But public transit systems as a whole showed increases. Even large bus-only systems such as Seattle, San Antonio and Austin have posted increases. Cities with both bus and rail have showed some declines, namely in Cleveland.
If you think transit agencies are goosing the numbers by more transfers, you should ask the agency for route-by-route ridership data for a few years. For instance, I could show how boardings could increase while ridership remains flat when a new rail line opens. Bus ridership shifts from a parallel line to an intersecting line. On the Blue Line, Line 60 ridership could have fallen while ridership on an east-west bus, such as 111 or 115, posted an increase. Finding such differences in ridership on lines can show you if it’s flat or has gained. For instance, if 111 boardings minus 60 boardings shows 0, ridership has remained flat. If it’s greater than 0, ridership increased.
Cities with both bus and rail have showed some declines, namely in Cleveland.
I believe population growth in Cleveland is well below the national average since their industrial base has massively eroded and people are moving out of the city since they can’t get work. That would explain the sluggish transit ridership.
Absolutely, Scott. Transit use mirrors a region’s economic health.