Editorial: MetroRiderLA’s fair fare proposal

[tags]los angeles, metro, mta, lacmta, fare[/tags]

Metro has struggled to add service, both as the result of increased demand and judicial mandates, while bringing down costs. The agency anticipates a subsidy shortfall. If subsidies cannot be increased, services must be cut or passenger fares must rise.

Does Metro have merit in raising its fares? Most riders are obviously going to say no, especially because most of Metro’s riders are too poor to pay higher fares. Politicians serve on Metro’s board, and would not want to deal with a voter revolt if fares are increased. In light of circumstances, fare increases have merit. However, MetroRiderLA, being an information and analysis provider for the transit using community, opposes the agency’s fare proposal because it demands very high fare increases at once and is trying to deliberately price passes high enough to destroy demand in the hopes of cancelling passes in the future. The fare table shows the obtuseness of transit agency bureaucrats who never comprehended the hardship it poses on riders. The site hopes that the plan, like a Los Angeles Times editorial suggests, was cynically stage-managed to make the board agree to a smaller fare increase and look like heroes in the eyes of the public.

A fare increase is warranted, and MetroRiderLA has proposed a different fare schedule that is easier on the riders’ pocketbooks and would still bring Metro’s financials in line. It calls for smaller incremental increases across a two-year period and a flattening of pass categories by Metro only selling EZ Passes, thereby justifying higher prices with the added value of riders being able to ride Los Angeles County’s most important bus systems.

To Metro’s credit, it has invested billions of dollars in transportation improvements. Los Angeles went from having zero rail in 1990 to the sixth-highest rail ridership in the country in less than two decades. Metro also has the nation’s second-highest bus ridership in the country, with well over 1 million boardings a weekday and still growing. The consent decree gave the Bus Riders Union its rhetorical dream: billions for buses. The consent decree forced Metro to spend over $1 billion on local bus service over a 10-year span. Metro has also added over a dozen Rapid bus lines to complement busy local services. Meanwhile, base cash fares have stayed at $1.25-$1.35 during the same period.

Metro’s operating expenses have also increased well out of proportion to its revenues. Metro, like the rest of America’s motorists, has seen fuel costs skyrocket. Health care costs for Metro’s 10,000+ employees have risen, as have salaries.

Metro has provided more to its customers without asking them to pay more. It’s not unreasonable to ask for a higher fare. However, MetroRiderLA strongly opposes Metro’s fare increase proposal.

MetroRiderLA is not opposed to fare increases per se, but the initial proposal is draconian to existing and potential riders. A 60% increase, implemented overnight, resembles economic hyperinflation in Europe between the World Wars. Also, the largest proportional increases are borne by seniors and students – the riders least able to budget for and afford such larger increases. Besides the high cash fare, the proposed pass prices are set so high to deliberately discourage their purchase and set them up for elimination in the future.

Instead, MetroRiderLA offers a compromise proposal. It supports a fare hike, but less severe and sudden than the mindless staff proposal. This fare plan also simplifies the fare structure and lends to the possibility of providing vital but high-cost/low-productivity services through municipal carriers. Also, philosophically, the inconvenience and burden of fare increases should have added passenger value.

Metro should eliminate its own proprietary passes and, for the higher price, only sell EZ Passes. Additionally, the Metro Day Pass should be converted to an EZ Day Pass, with the confusing Metro-to-Muni transfer eliminated. Munis should also sell the EZ Day Pass, and agree to the same boarding-reimbursement formula for the monthly passes.

MetroRiderLA’s fare proposal calls for a five-step increase through two years. Cash fares and EZ Day Passes rise in three of five steps: July in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The EZ Monthly passes also see increases in January in 2008 and 2009. Our table:

Fare type	July 2007	Jan. 2008	July 2008	Jan. 2009	July 2009
General cash fare	1.50		1.75		2.00
Token (11-buy 10, get one free)	15.00		17.50		20.00
Senior (age 65+)/disabled fare	0.50		0.75
Senior/disabled token (11-buy 10, get one free)	5.00				7.50
EZ Day Pass (general)	5.00		6.00		7.00
EZ Senior/disabled Day Pass	1.50				2.50
EZ Weekly Pass	25.00	28.00	30.00	33.00	35.00
EZ Monthly Pass	75.00	80.00	85.00	90.00	95.00
EZ College Monthly pass	45.00	50.00	55.00	60.00	65.00
EZ Senior/disabled and K-12 Monthly Pass	30.00	35.00	40.00	45.00	50.00
Express step-up fare	0.50		0.75		1.00
Senior/disabled express step-up fare	0.25		0.50
EZ Express premium sticker (per zone)	25.00	30.00	35.00	40.00	45.00
EZ Express discount premium sticker (per zone)	10.00	15.00	20.00	25.00	30.00

The cash fare would still rise to $2, putting Los Angeles in line with transit systems in big cities with similar operational characteristics. However, rather than slapping a massive 75-cent increase at once, it allows for slow but steady increases to give riders time to prepare to pay more in smaller increments.

Also, pass prices would increase, but riders would see added value through EZ-only class fares. The passes would be good on Metro and other important municipal carriers in Los Angeles County. This would also help Metro, as it could now delegate operations of expensive underperforming bus lines to munis that can salvage lines that would otherwise see severe cuts or even elimination, such as Line 275 – to be transferred to Norwalk Transit in June 2007, or former Line 104 – now Montebello Bus Line 50.

Further, pass prices are kept below the $100 threshold. Beyond $100, Metro’s passes become too expensive for everyday riders, and only Metrolink riders are accustomed to paying three-digit fares. Even in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston, where the proposed cash fares would be similar, the monthly passes range from $59 (Boston urban bus and rail fare) to $75 (Chicago). Even MetroRiderLA recommends the prices above with great hesitation, and would hope Metro keeps the pass price near these agencies.

Metro has added a respectable amount of service in the past decade, and this level of service should be maintained if Metro wants to keep the riders it has attracted to buses and trains. Service reductions hurt riders worse than fare increases, and this is a less worse alternative than slashing bus and train coverage.

However, the increases should be small and still result in added value to riders. A simplified fare structure, such as EZ-only passes, also makes administration easier and opens up the possibility for lower cost operators providing service to riders while having an easy-to-understand fare schedule. MetroRiderLA’s suggested plan offers a fairer (no pun intended) plan to riders and still provides the agency with added revenue, better than the staff proposal could.

This plan is submitted to Metro for its consideration.