German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseBart Reed’s perspective on Metro fare increase
[tags]los angeles, metro, mta, transit coalition[/tags]
Bart Reed, The Transit Coalition’s executive director, posted a message regarding the proposed Metro fare increases on the organization’s message board. Part of the steep hikes involve a proposal for no service cuts, but there are other proposals involving fare increases along with service cuts, which can be as much as 25 percent. The message is mirrored here in its entirety:
Here is a little back story on this. Gloria Molina gave internal documents to the BRU folks that weren’t public. At first the Board was going to meet on this on April 23, but after the BRU demonstration in the Board Room, some Board Members decided to hold the hearings and action on another day. Just like all Board Actions, Metro hears the proposals, hears the public and discusses the matter and makes a decision.
Roger Snoble was told in his performance review that he had to solve the Structural Deficit NOW. So, the proposal that has been issued is a “No Service Cut” version. Some of the alternatives that have been floating around include 10% to 25% service cuts.
With a $1 Billion deficit and the lack of ability to run either the East L.A. Gold Line or the Expo Line, some type of action had to be taken.
Will there be some type of political compromise? Maybe. But, with the lack of understanding of basic economics from our elected officials, I am sure something weird may be enacted.
As much as many are used to almost free transit, that $75 works out to $3.40 / workday as compared to the new $5 daypass.
Even the $120 monthly pass works out to $5.45 / workday as compared to the new $8 daypass and the $2 base fare.
Anyway you look at it, you can still pay $3.25 for a gallon of gas. Many easily pay $60 / week or more for gas, so in perspective the increase while steep, isn’t much compared when you look at everything else.
I see it being a choice between cutting of more service and a lot of cutting versus paying $ .40 for every $1 of service, while the subsidy is $ .60 out of every $1 you pay. Right now riders only pay $ .24 out of every $1, so the ride is almost free.
Is this a bad thing? Well, the 25% service reduction scenario is a lot worse and will really kill transit.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
With a $1 Billion deficit and the lack of ability to run either the East L.A. Gold Line or the Expo Line, some type of action had to be taken.
Gosh how time flies. Couldn’t have been more than 6-7 years ago when Darrell called me no end of nasty horrible things for saying exactly the same thing. ‘Scourse Tom Rubin had me beat by 20 years with exactly the same observation. Difference is this time it is “one of their own” stating the obvious MTAs fascination with rail will come at the expense of riders, ridership and taxpayers while providing reduced transit utility. At least Mr. Reed will be spared the viciuos personal attacks and we can hopefully discuss the funding issues without the usual rancor. Note; when Reed relates the 24% farebox recovery that is a little misleading. While technically correct within the bounds of NTD reporting standards several recent accounting changes and capital projects cause the numbers to not give a true picture of the farebox to operating budget ratio.
I think a big part of the problem is that fares aren’t indexed to inflation in any meaningful way. When I first rode the MTA back in 1996, iirc, it was $1.35 to ride. Now it’s $1.25. Figuring 4% annual inflation, the fare should be $2.07 now. If we do something sensible, like an automatic annual index increase (typically $.05-.10) we wouldn’t have a big dramatic and painful increase like this one on our hands. I think that boosting fares is fine, but not 60% at a stretch.
And those boosts in day pass and monthly pass fares seem designed to prevent people from making that option. Hell, the current day pass rate is $.50 to high. A day pass should be priced at 2x the base fare with a monthly pass being priced at 40x the base fare.
Why should a day pass cost 2x the base fare? Most people take a bus or train to and from somewhere, which would render the base fare completely useless if a day pass was exactly the cost of two one-way tickets. As it is right now, if you know you are just going to work and back you can save yourself $.50, and for a premium of $.50 you can take the system anywhere you want as much as you want all day… that seems MORE than fair, in fact, it’s a bloody bargain.
And why should the monthly pass be so cheap as well? If someone were to currently ride the bus to and from work every week day, paying only the base fare each way, their monthly cost would be $52.50 (assuming 21 working days)… a monthly pass costs $52, your 40x month pass is $50… and with the monthly pass you get to ride as much as you want (not just to and from work) and have the convenience of not requiring exact change or stopping at fare boxes or ticket machines… to me that stuff is worth a premium (and more than a $.50 premium), not a discount.
Ideally, a day pass would be 4x the cash fare if transfers are eliminated. It would really be four cash boardings. Transfers are bigger money losers than all-day passes, since the small transfer premium cuts the value of the first fare. And in L.A., transfers are a necessary evil. Riders may hate them, but transfers are what make the system as a whole so effective.
Reviving two ideas from years ago:
Passes should come with a 25¢ boarding fee.
Zev calculated that monthly passholders paid 58¢ for a trip. We could adjust prices until passes represented 75% or so of the typical cash fare under any new pricing plan.
Long term price increases; 1.5% per month is barely enough to cover the kinds of increases transit expenditures have seen in recent years nevermind erase past decades of deferred increases. Like I mentioned, this is well within the bounds of other types of increases in transportation costs we’ve seen in the recent past. Remember a 20% annual increase in fares is only going to cover a 7-8% increase in annual operating costs.
Robert wrote:
Gosh how time flies. Couldn’t have been more than 6-7 years ago when Darrell called me no end of nasty horrible things for saying exactly the same thing.
My only reply to this was a doleful violin MP3 that conveyed this message well in music, but I can’t get the coding to have it play in the background.
‘Scourse Tom Rubin had me beat by 20 years with exactly the same observation.
You overshot the bulls-eye here.
What does the Eastside Gold Line or Expo Line cost to operate now or in the last five years?
Answer: Zero.
Both are not operating right now.
Turns out, both the state and federal governments put an onerous burden on transit agencies by forcing them to have operating funds on hand before they can even run additional service. This is why government is so damn inefficient.
A better alternative is how the private sector grew the economy during much of Bush’s term. You simply give credit or a high loan and leave it up to the people on their honor to repay their debts by any means necessary. Anybody who wanted their own home got one.
If ordinary Americans can keep the economy humming by a “we’ll cross that bridge when we get there” financing regimen, surely a public agency is trustworthy to operate by the same principles.
[Note to readers: Robert and I are familar with each other and our dialectic, and he immediately gets what I was saying. For anyone not "in," this is what is known in logic as "begging the question."]
Anyway, Metro must have the operating funds lined up before the trains even begin to run, otherwise the capital funds are withheld.
But what makes this hard to do is that Metro has had operating expenses in the past for services it had run. Namely, a judge with no transportation background made sure Metro forced it to honor a contract it made with an organization with no transportation background and devious aims. Metro also had to do this without increasing fares unless the judge said it was OK.
At the same time, Metro was affected by massive increases to its overhead, namely in fuel, healthcare and wages. Couple this with no additional subsidies to cover these costs and an inability to raise fares and still be required to add service, and in short, there’ll be problems.
Difference is this time it is “one of their own” stating the obvious MTAs fascination with rail will come at the expense of riders, ridership and taxpayers while providing reduced transit utility.
Absolutely, because Metro is a gangster entity with a fixation on expensive capital projects that can run with impunity. It’s accountable to no one, and Moloch unto itself.
It’s not as though there’s any kind of law or anything that lets them build rail. It’s not as though riders, or Los Angeles County, even wanted rail. Heck, when was the last time people were even asked if they wanted rail? It’s not as though it was voted on or anything.
More importantly, though, the problem that MTA has is not following the process. They are not following Title VI rules, they are not following Circular 4702.1, and they are not following their own policies. They are planning to place passes only on TAP cards, which if MTA bungles the rollout could lead into Consent Decree II since any organization can easily show where the TAP machines are (probably at rail stations and customer centers only, and not at private check cashing joints). Tom Rubin is currently a consultant for NRDC and they can effectively make the case against the fare increase for environmental reasons (don’t believe that a marginal change WON’T force people into cheap, reliable cars, or even lead to a resurgence in dollar vans).
Bart Reed is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his position will only make has own organization more irrelevant. The trick is to propose a reasonable fare increase, not one with so many loopholes that folks will buy Metrolink passes instead of EZ Passes because they are cheaper.
Fred, the day pass should be at a 2.5 X multiple or less, since transfers do not exist on this system. Transfers exist on all of the peer agencies that Metro likes to roll out…. Philadelphia (where the “real” base fare is only $1.30 because the token discount is so steep), New York, Chicago, and Boston. In fact, people making round trips are actually MORE likely not to buy the day pass and drop the money in the box, especially if the last leg of their trip is less than a mile and it is a toss up between walking and waiting for the bus. What this is going to do is slow down boarding times, as people have to drop the quarters in the box instead of purchasing the day pass. The day pass is not there for the convenience of the passenger, but it is also for the convenience of the agency. There are already many loopholes in the fare system now. (For instance, the cheapest Metrolink ticket, $4.75 on weekdays and $3.00 on weekends, acts the same as an EZ Day Pass, and will be cheaper than a regular MTA day pass, without the EZ Pass privileges. If you have a few minutes to spare, and you are leaving the Promenade, board a Santa Monica bus, buy a transfer, and board your MTA bus and save a few cents.) Will people do it for 50 cents? Probably not. But if people can use one of these loopholes to save a dollar, don’t you believe that a transit dependent person wouldn’t do it.
Incidentally, it is polite to link directly to the post that Bart made, so that others may read the context. http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=fares&action=display&thread=1174703362&page=1
Calwatch wrote:
More importantly, though, the problem that MTA has is not following the process. They are not following Title VI rules, they are not following Circular 4702.1, and they are not following their own policies. They are planning to place passes only on TAP cards, which if MTA bungles the rollout could lead into Consent Decree II since any organization can easily show where the TAP machines are (probably at rail stations and customer centers only, and not at private check cashing joints).
First, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The fare increase is not a done deal. There haven’t been any formal proposals or public review processes yet. That’s just getting underway. If the fares have been ramrodded, that’s the problem.
Also, TAP is still being alpha tested. The only cards that have been issued are to employees and possibly UCLA students for BruinGo.
Metro will have to make provisions to make the passes accessible if they are TAP only. Remember, though, that merchants opt in and may choose to opt out, if for instance, TAP read-write machines are going too come at a greater cost to them, or Metro decides to reduce sale commissions. Again, the roll-out has not begun.
Ideally, with TAP capability, Metro and the munis ought to make cards and recharging available in the places they will most be used: on the buses. Agencies with the Odyssey farebox also have a fare register that can double as a TAP recharger.
Tom Rubin is currently a consultant for NRDC and they can effectively make the case against the fare increase for environmental reasons (don’t believe that a marginal change WON’T force people into cheap, reliable cars, or even lead to a resurgence in dollar vans).
And if the NRDC wins, this will only defer the problem to a much bigger one later. Remember, canceling any major project or improvement does not create a net refund.
The trick is to propose a reasonable fare increase, not one with so many loopholes that folks will buy Metrolink passes instead of EZ Passes because they are cheaper.
Why a trick (a crafted illusion, as in magic)?
I would agree with you to set up a policy, a deliberative set of rules, of a reasonable fare increase. The public should be presented a fare schedule and get an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Fred, the day pass should be at a 2.5 X multiple or less, since transfers do not exist on this system.
In the case of Metro, it should be from 2X to 4X the cash fare.
Philadelphia (where the “real” base fare is only $1.30 because the token discount is so steep),
Interesting you brought up tokens. In 1994, Metro eliminated passes because they supposedly were overused and cost the agency too much rides. It tried to compensate by offering a 90 cent token viz a $1.35 cash fare.
The money it lost in passes was smaller compared to the unintended consequence of the gray-market token market created by riders. A 33% discount made tokens more lucrative, but Metro lost more through 90 cent fares than $1.35 fares. This is because entrepreneurs bought tokens at 90 cents (or had someone buy more at a cheaper rate), went to bus stops and resold them for $1 or $1.25. The rider would still find a token huckster and save, the huckster would make a small profit. Meanwhile, Metro ended up losing more money because fewer people had to pay the full $1.35 fare.
Needless to say, passes were restored in short order and the token prices still remained. Transfers also drastically reduced the cost of subsequent rides. Also, Metro Rail was very popular with transfer holders because unlike a bus, they didn’t have to surrender the slip to a fare inspector.
In fact, people making round trips are actually MORE likely not to buy the day pass and drop the money in the box, especially if the last leg of their trip is less than a mile and it is a toss up between walking and waiting for the bus.
Depends on the number of transfers per trip, service frequency and the route structure. The country’s big three agencies all have a common characteristic: all have grid routings, which require frequent transfers (except in Manhattan, where east-west blocks are rather short); all have areas of frequent service; and most trips involve two buses.
In virtually all transit systems, transfers are going to be necessary and inevitable. There are two ways of setting fares: set cash fares very low but do not offer transfers or set cash fares high but offer transfers.
What this is going to do is slow down boarding times, as people have to drop the quarters in the box instead of purchasing the day pass. The day pass is not there for the convenience of the passenger, but it is also for the convenience of the agency. There are already many loopholes in the fare system now. (For instance, the cheapest Metrolink ticket, $4.75 on weekdays and $3.00 on weekends, acts the same as an EZ Day Pass, and will be cheaper than a regular MTA day pass, without the EZ Pass privileges. If you have a few minutes to spare, and you are leaving the Promenade, board a Santa Monica bus, buy a transfer, and board your MTA bus and save a few cents.)
The Santa Monica (actually muni) loophole is so familiar it’s not even a secret. Santa Monica actually gets a float, since drivers will just sell the riders a transfer and not even require them to ride. This is commonplace on Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards.
The Metrolink loophole is rare because the cash ticket is so high. The San Bernardino line is Metrolink’s busiest, not the Antelope Valley Line. Why is this important? San Bernardino does not have a comparable bus line that mimics it. Antelope Valley Line does, and you’d think that riders would have abandoned Line 94 for the train. They didn’t. Line 94 (394 now) has an unusual phenomenon: over half the riders ride over half the length of the route. One reason Line 394 was made the long-haul line is because riders make a trip that can be done on Metrolink, but riders need the low fare and endure a slow bus ride rather than the time savings provided by the train with a high-fare. You don’t see many San Fernando Road riders buying the $4.75 ticket and hopping on the bus.
For Metrolink, not now, because the EZ Day Pass isn’t worth it. But come July, if this fare increase goes through, expect to see a lot more Metrolink tickets (and passes) being used as day passes, which helps Metro even less.
Calwatch wrote:
But come July, if this fare increase goes through, expect to see a lot more Metrolink tickets (and passes) being used as day passes, which helps Metro even less.
There is likely going to be a fare increase, but it might take a very different form than what has been proposed. We have to wait until we see the one that the board would actually vote to implement.
Else, the Metrolink ticket loophole is not going to have the same consequences as the gray-market token reselling did. For one thing, Metrolink stations are often out of the way. It might not be fruitful for the rider to have a time loss to buy the cheapest ticket and make the transfer connection. Also, if it does ever become a problem, remember that all transfer arrangements require an agreement between the two agencies. Metrolink’s tickets are not blanket transfers. Metro may monkeywrench this by enforcing what is common transfer policy among munis: the ticket is only good for directly connecting bus service, and only away from the direction of the station, with the transfer only valid if the ticket lists said station as the destination. Metrolink cannot stop Metro from doing this.
Which defeats the purpose of the EZ Pass agreement that Metrolink signed. The point of that agreement was to make transferring easier and ease the pain of the 5% overall fare increase the last four years on Metrolink. Based on the non-attentiveness to the interagency loophole, I doubt this loophole will be closed either.