BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

[CA] Metro fare hikes are the only way

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Surface Transit - Western United States
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: [CA] Metro fare hikes are the only way Reply with quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-snoble27apr27,0,5534063,print.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Metro fare hikes are the only way
Deep deficits and chronic under funding mean business as usual can't continue without large fare increases.
By Roger Snoble
ROGER SNOBLE is chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

April 27, 2007

FOR DECADES, Los Angeles County taxpayers have been heavily subsidizing fares for Metro bus and rail riders. The subsidies rose sharply under a federal consent decree — in place since 1996 and ended last October — when a court-appointed special master ordered a massive expansion of bus service and fares were essentially frozen. That has resulted in a $1.8-billion projected operating deficit for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over the next 10 years.

But the deficit doesn't exist in a vacuum. It threatens to choke off mobility options for 10 million residents whether they walk, bike, take a bus or train, carpool or drive a car or truck. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity and income and no matter what mode of travel they use, pays the sales taxes that pay for our transportation programs, so we all have a stake in the fare subsidy dilemma.

County taxpayers are not getting what they expected when they voted twice since 1980 for local sales taxes intended to further modernize and expand public transit and improve streets and highways. Last November, voters overwhelmingly approved a nearly $20-billion state bond measure to build highway and public transit projects. Metro's huge operating deficit is siphoning local funds that could be used to match bond money and other state and federal funds to fast-track critical highways and transit system projects.

This is what drove the Metro staff, which I head, to propose a major fare restructuring. We simply can't continue business as usual and still provide quality service to our customers. Although the base cash fare is $1.25, the average rider pays only 58 cents a boarding. This is due to deep discounts for the various pass holders. Fares cover just 24% of the cost of a ride; 76% is subsidized by taxpayers. In 1988, taxpayers subsidized 56% of each boarding passenger's ride.

Metro staff is proposing raising the $1.25 cash fare to $2, beginning in January 2009. Day passes would increase from $3 to $5 in July, and to $8 by 2009; monthly passes would go from $52 to $75 in July, and to $120 by 2009. This is not out of line with other major cities. A daily pass costs $9 in Boston, $8 in Atlanta and $7 in New York City, and many carriers already charge $2 base fares. If the Metro board adopts the proposed fare changes, the average passenger will still pay only 86 cents per ride.

It's simple economics; our revenues don't cover our costs, and if we don't do something now, we're just postponing the inevitable and making the problem worse for the future.

Metro has diminished its reserves, slashed more than 500 administrative positions in the last five years, reined in workers' compensation costs and aggressively pursued every avenue to raise more revenue, including blanketing our buses and Metro Rail stations with ads. But it's still not enough.

We recognize that higher fares will be difficult for our customers. It's the last thing we want, but we have forestalled acting for far too long. At this point, if we don't make the fare change, it will be much worse for our patrons because cuts in service will be more painful, leaving many riders stranded.

Despite rising costs for equipment, fuel, labor and other operating expenses, Metro has maintained one of the lowest fare structures in the U.S., even as we undertook the greatest expansion of service in our history. Over the last decade, under the federal consent decree, Metro purchased more than 2,000 clean-air buses and added more than 1 million hours of service.

Metro ridership in 2006 rose almost 6% over the previous year, double the national average. However, we're faced with the difficult but very real choice between charging higher fares or providing less service. History tells us that our customers are willing to pay more as long as the quality and level of service remains high. The fare change is this agency's commitment to deliver the service our patrons have come to rely on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: [CA] Mayor seeks to ease MTA hikes Reply with quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta22may22,1,1033502.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

Mayor seeks to ease MTA hikes
Villaraigosa proposes smaller increases to help low-income bus riders and suggests ways the agency can free up cash to cover expected deficit.
By Duke Helfand and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers
May 22, 2007

Assailing sweeping bus fare hikes proposed by the MTA as "extreme," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Monday called for more modest increases that would ease the financial crunch on low-income riders.

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. The MTA provides mass transit across Los Angeles County.

To make up for the more modest increases, the mayor suggested that the transit agency free up cash by borrowing money to finance the purchase of buses and rail cars over the coming years, slightly reduce the frequency of rail service and aggressively pursue state gas tax money.

Villaraigosa, who sits on the 13-member MTA board along with three of his appointees, laid out his scenario in a letter to fellow board members. The board is scheduled to vote on the fare hikes Thursday.

Under the mayor's plan, cash fares would remain untouched at $1.25. Other prices would rise about 5% annually to keep up with labor and fuel expenses.

As a result, the mayor proposed that the cost of a day pass 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.

Also under Villaraigosa's plan, monthly passes would increase from $52 to $57.33 in 2009, far less than the MTA proposal of reaching $120 by that year.

In his letter to the board, the mayor said the "proposed increases are extreme and would have a fundamentally negative impact on ridership and our most vulnerable customers, many of whom are low income and transit dependent."

MTA chief Roger Snoble declined to comment on the mayor's proposal, saying through a spokesman that he wanted to review it further. But in a Times opinion piece last month, Snoble argued that the MTA's operating deficit is siphoning money that could be used to help build transit and highway projects.

Agency spokesman Marc Littman said the MTA recovers 24% of its operating costs from fares — below the 38% recovered by most large transit agencies. And fares have been largely stagnant for the last decade, even as the MTA has purchased 2,100 buses, he said.

The MTA faces difficult choices as it struggles to balance its books, Littman said.

"If you don't do it with fares, then you have to do it some other way, and the other way is to cut service, and we don't want to do that," he said.

The L.A. Bus Riders Union rejected Villaraigosa's overture, saying any fare increase would reduce ridership, increase pollution and ultimately hurt the city's poorest residents.

Statistics provided by the mayor's office showed that 81% of MTA bus passengers earn $15,000 to $24,999 a year.

"Our position is no fare increase at all — not one cent," said Damon Azali, a senior organizer for the Bus Riders Union. "Once they win the right to a fare increase, they will keep pushing it."

Azali and other critics of the proposed hikes have accused the MTA of spending too much on a rail system that serves a small portion of Los Angeles County at the expense of badly needed bus service on some of the region's most crowded routes.

Villaraigosa acknowledged that his proposed increase in debt financing could ultimately slow the MTA's ability to build transit projects. But the mayor reiterated his call for a greater expansion of mass transit in the city and region.

"While we have a duty to ensure that our bus system is robust, the MTA also has obligations to invest in our rail system and our highways," he wrote. "I truly believe that the MTA must develop a multi-modal system, one that has a first-class bus system, a first-class rail system and a first-class highway system."

duke.helfand@latimes.com

steve.hymon@latimes.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:29 pm    Post subject: MTA at a crossroads with fare decision Reply with quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta24may24,0,3882746,full.story?coll=la-home-center

MTA at a crossroads with fare decision
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writers
May 24, 2007

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority today will consider approving a series of large fare increases that would hit bus riders particularly hard at a time when officials are spending $1.5 billion for a network of new rail lines.

The vote is seen as a pivotal moment for the MTA, which until last year was under a federal consent decree to improve bus service but kept fare increases at a minimum over the last decade.

Although 82% of all MTA boardings are on buses, the agency is increasingly bullish on rail projects, which officials see as a long-term solution for moving large numbers of people across the region as street congestion increases. At 73 total miles of rail, the MTA's system is still much smaller than those of other major cities and leaves many parts of the county without service.

MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble has recommended raising the cash fare for both rail and bus to $2 per ride from $1.25 and the monthly pass to $120 from $52 over the next 19 months.

Officials say the increases are needed to close a projected deficit created, in part, by the court-ordered expansion of bus service, as well as by the expansion of the rail network. Rising fuel prices and employee benefits have also hit the agency hard.

The MTA is also struggling with $4.7 billion in debt accrued over the years to build rail lines and other capital projects, including its $300-million, 26-story downtown headquarters.

For the current fiscal year, the MTA is budgeted to spend $360.6 million paying down its debts — more than its entire $229-million budget for operating the rail system.

The MTA is pushing for the higher fares as officials construct new rail projects to East Los Angeles and Culver City at a combined cost of about $1.5 billion. It is also planning new routes from Pasadena to Azusa and from Culver City to Santa Monica.

Today's hearing "is a big day for L.A.," said MTA spokesman Rick Jager. "We are at a point now where something has to give."

Some critics say the fare hike would essentially fund rail improvements on the backs of bus riders, who tend to be significantly less affluent than rail riders, MTA statistics show. The median household income of a bus rider is $12,000, according to the MTA, compared with $22,000 for a rail rider.

Rosa Mazo, a worker at the Bonaventure Hotel who was waiting for a bus Wednesday, said the fare increase would be unfair to the working poor.

"I depend on the bus all the time," said Mazo, who commutes from Echo Park. "I know some people who make minimum wage, and for them, it's so hard…. We end up staying in the same hole, never getting out."

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stepped into the divide this week, proposing a compromise. It would keep the cash fare the same over the next two years and boost other fares by only about 10%. It would also reduce rail service frequency in the short term and use loans, rather than cash, to buy buses and rail cars, which could slow down future projects.

But some transportation experts say Villaraigosa's proposal does not resolve a financial problem that could worsen as more rail comes on line.

"It's a classic political compromise: The fare hikes are unpopular, the budget crisis is real, so we'll raise the fares" by a smaller amount and try to find other funding sources for the rest, said Brian Taylor, director of UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies. "Debt finance is putting it on the credit card — it's a short-term thing to avoid tough decisions…. It's a strategy. It's not really a solution."

The MTA says it has already laid off 500 administrative employees, blanketed rail stations with advertising, added TV monitors airing commercials in buses and performed other belt-tightening and revenue-generating measures. But Taylor and others said transportation leaders have avoided looking at bigger-picture items, such as renegotiating labor contracts, charging fares based on distance traveled or contracting out some services such as maintenance to nonunion firms.

There is also much debate about whether the MTA's commitment to rail makes sense given its limited funding and the sprawling geography of Los Angeles County.

James E. Moore, director of USC's transportation engineering program, said focusing on buses would be a smarter, less costly alternative. He and others point to busways on a dedicated road such as the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley. The line has surpassed the MTA's ridership estimates.

"The bottom line is that the MTA's financial problems will never improve so long as we cling to rail as a priority," Moore said.

But others strongly disagree, saying the county's worsening congestion is going to make bus service on its busiest roads — such as Wilshire Boulevard — increasingly difficult. Rail backers argue that the MTA's rail ridership will grow rapidly as it expands to new neighborhoods.

Adding more rail lines, particularly to underserved areas such as the Westside and San Gabriel Valley, will ultimately boost ridership throughout the entire system, they say.

"Rail gives greater speed, it's more comfortable and it has higher capacity than buses," said Darrell Clarke, co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit, which has been pushing for the line from downtown to Culver City. "Buses are stuck in traffic."

Overall, rail is much more expensive to operate than buses — $348 per hour of service compared with $114. But rail backers say trains are ultimately more efficient than buses because they can carry more passengers.

The debate in Los Angeles over rail versus buses has been going on for decades. It intensified after voters approved a half-cent sales tax for transportation in 1980.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, L.A. transit officials began a rail building boom, starting with the Long Beach-to-downtown Blue Line and by the mid-1990s adding the Red Line subway and the Green Line rail between Norwalk and Redondo Beach.

But bus riders complained that the agency was neglecting bus service while raising fares. Several groups, including the Bus Riders Union and the NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit against the MTA in 1994. Two years later, the agency agreed to enter into a federal consent decree, in which a judge oversaw the way the MTA dealt with bus service.

The judge ordered the MTA to increase bus service significantly while keeping fares relatively flat. Over the last decade, the MTA purchased more than 2,000 new buses, expanded service hours and added the popular rapid bus system on some key routes.

But at the same, the agency continued building rail, adding the Gold Line and expanding Blue and Red line operations.

MTA spokesman Jager said the decree, which expired in 2006, represented a "double whammy" because the agency dramatically increased service without gaining more revenue.

Officials said that without a fare increase, the MTA would have to cut about 30% of its bus service. If the increase fails, the MTA said it would not have enough money to operate the Gold Line East L.A. extension and the Expo Line to Culver City, both under construction.

The predictions have bus riders, including Dawn Renderos, 33, shaking their heads.

"It's already expensive," Renderos said. "For them to raise it like that, that's extreme."

The MTA board of directors will hold a public hearing on the fare hike proposals today at 9 a.m. at its headquarters at East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and North Vignes Street in downtown Los Angeles.

*

ron.lin@latimes.com

cara.dimassa@latimes.com

Times staff writers Nancy Vogel in Sacramento and Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this report.

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Proposed fare increases

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's board of directors will today consider increasing fares. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has proposed a compromise with smaller fare hikes.

MTA fares
Daily Monthly Monthly
Cash pass pass sr. pass
Current $1.25 $3.00 $52.00 $12.00
MTA's proposal
As of July 1 1.25 5.00 75.00 37.50
January '09 2.00 8.00 120.00 60.00
Mayor's proposal
July 2008 1.25 3.15 54.60 12.60
July 2009 1.25 3.31 57.33 13.23
Other cities, current fares
Daily Monthly Monthly
Cash pass pass sr. pass
Chicago 2.00 5.00 75.00 35.00
New York 2.00 7.00 76.00=38.00
San Francisco 1.50 11.00 45.00 10.00
Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, New York MTA, Chicago Transit Authority
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Thinking Out of the Box Reply with quote

Cyberider,

There is no question that, whether it happens in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or any other major city, fare hikes result in lost ridership every time!

And the kind of hike that the LACMTA is talking about will chase fares away by the thousands principally because those affected can hardly afford what they pay now!

Back in July of 1994, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Los Angeles Times and I quote as follows;

"If these increases in fares and reductions in ridership and services continue, I estimate that by the year 2094 there will be four buses and two trolley cars left on the streets of Los Angeles, and the average one way fare will be roughly $768.000!

As rediculous as this may seem, I think I have come up with a solution that may even be more rediculous!

Why not slash fares in half which will result not in doubling the ridership but quadrupling it?!

As I see it, the only problem that may be encountered with my plan is what the MTA will do with all the money they will make!".

Funny; here's a letter from thirteen years ago that is just as applicable to the situation today (if not more so) than it was at that time.

You have to start thinking 'out of the box' to solve these problems - when will the dummies downtown begin to realize that?

Mr. Linsky
"The Green Hornet"
Green Bus Lines, Inc., Jamaica, New York

41
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ripta42
Site Admin


Age: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think raising the fare would be that detrimental to ridership, especially in Los Angeles, where I get the impression that most transit riders do so because they can't or don't want to drive. With the rising cost of driving, $2 is still a bargain for getting to where you're going. Also, with a 60% increase in fares, even a large drop in ridership would still result in more income for the MTA. For what it's worth, the CTA has shown an increase in ridership since raising the fare to $2 last year.

I don't think slashing fares is a viable solution. Quadrupling the ridership means you need to provide more capacity - more vehicles, more operating staff, more maintenance - or simply provide inadequate service. The former brings back the budget problems, and the latter would drive away the new riders very quickly.

We all know what the nickel fare did to private transit companies in New York. I just finished reading Vincent Seyfried's 1955 chronicle of the New York & North Shore Traction Co. Customers wanted the service so badly, many voluntarily paid the seven cents that the company petitioned to charge. The city denied the petition, and the company ran out of money. It should never be allowed to happen again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm of the opinion that the fares need to be raised. Transit is already taxpayer-subsidized enough and the user's need to pay more of their share. Certain groups of our society (legal or otherwise) are very vocal about getting someone else to pay their way. In this case, I think we are already doing that and it's time for them to pay their own way. MTA fares are now on the low side. They need to go up to help cover costs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:53 am    Post subject: MTA approves steep hikes for bus, rail fares Reply with quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta25may25,1,3898897,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true

MTA approves steep hikes for bus, rail fares
The cost of a day pass will double by 2009. Transit officials reject mayor's compromise.
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Times Staff Writers
May 25, 2007

Los Angeles County transit leaders Thursday approved the first across-the-board fare increase in more than a decade, despite emotional testimony from hundreds of bus riders who said they could not afford steep price hikes.

The new fares — which apply to both bus and rail service — are less than the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's staff had sought but will still increase the amount riders pay significantly over the next two years. The cost of the monthly pass will gradually rise from $52 to $75 by July 1, 2009. The popular day pass will rise from $3 to $6 over the same period.

The decision by the MTA's Board of Directors marks a stinging defeat for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who had tried to broker a compromise that would have raised most fares only 5% a year. But the board roundly rejected the mayor's proposal, saying it would leave the agency with a deep operating deficit and would delay future rail projects.

"When you look at so many of them who make the minimum wage, who make less than the poverty level, clearly they are not going to be able to afford it," Villaraigosa said afterward.

The 9-4 vote marks a pivotal moment for mass transit in Los Angeles. The MTA had been unable to significantly raise fares for the last decade because of a federal consent decree established after bus riders and civil rights groups sued the agency in a bid to improve bus service.

Even without the added revenues, the agency has pushed forward with an ambitious rail expansion, including the Gold Line that runs from downtown L.A. to Pasadena and two new routes now under construction, one to East L.A., the other to Culver City.

The MTA found itself with a projected $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade, and CEO Roger Snoble said the agency was faced with the choice of raising fares or cutting service. "We are at a crossroads," he said. "We have a great system. We just can't pay for it."

The fares approved Thursday, along with other cost savings, could eliminate the deficit in eight years, he said.

The MTA's original proposal called for the daily cash fare to rise to $2 per ride from $1.25 and the monthly pass to $120 from $52 over the next two years.

But the 13-member board — which includes the mayor, all five county supervisors and other officials — quickly agreed that the proposal was draconian. The majority also agreed, however, that the mayor's plan was unworkable because it would not raise enough revenue and called for more borrowing to buy buses. The mayor's proposal was rejected on an 8-5 vote.

Instead, Supervisor Gloria Molina proposed the alternative that won approval.

The new fare schedule is more modest, but it still packs a punch. The single-ride cash fare will rise the least, from $1.25 to $1.50 over the next two years. But most riders use some form of a pass, which will see bigger increases. The costs of a monthly pass will rise 44%, and the cost of the daily pass will double. The monthly pass for senior citizens will rise from $12 to $17 — a 42% increase but a far cry from the 400% jump (to $60) the MTA originally proposed.

The first fare increase takes effect July 1.

"It's a compromise. It does address the deficit, and we don't have to borrow money," said Molina, the MTA board chairwoman, after the vote. "It does include a fare increase. But it is much more gradual. It puts us on track to give us the stability we need in the long run."

Hoping to cushion the blow, the MTA agreed to a special 25-cent fare for senior citizens and the disabled during non-peak hours. The board also discussed another fare increase that would take effect in 2011 — but would require another MTA vote.

Villaraigosa was hoping to bring the board together on a compromise that would soften the blow for riders. Instead, he drew strong criticism from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who called the mayor's stance disingenuous.

During a heated exchange, Yaroslavsky said Villaraigosa had indicated that he would support a fare increase in a closed session last summer after the MTA board agreed to a new contract with bus drivers and mechanics.

A visibly angry Villaraigosa shot back, accusing Yaroslavsky of mischaracterizing private conversations and then lashing out at the supervisor for sitting in his office while the mayor was in Sacramento on Wednesday trying to get more transportation funding.

Villaraigosa then said Yaroslavsky didn't have the courage to propose his own fare increases, calling him a "sheep who walks in wolf's clothing."

The vote came at the end of five hours of comments from hundreds of bus riders who packed the MTA boardroom, overflowing into four other rooms at the towering downtown headquarters. The turnout, estimated by police at 1,500, was so large that at one point the building's lobby was closed down by fire officials citing potential danger.

Hundreds of people who depend on the buses to get to work, school, doctor's appointments, stores and elsewhere told the board and a standing-room-only crowd that the higher fares would create even starker choices in their daily lives.

Lucy Duran, 62, of Mount Washington told the panel that her family "can't even get a gallon of milk on our table," much less afford to pay more to ride the bus. "The fare increase means less food for us, even fewer tortillas on the table," she said.

South Los Angeles resident Rosa Perez, 35, who has two children and works as housekeeper, said she makes only about $350 a week. After paying for food and rent, she said, she is left with little for transportation. "What am I supposed to do at end of week with $20?" Perez asked in Spanish.

The protests were tinged with charges of racism on the part of the MTA board because the vast majority of riders are Latino and black. Some critics argue that the MTA favors more rail systems aimed at getting commuters out of their cars at the expense of those solely dependent on buses for transportation. An MTA survey showed that the median household income of rail riders is $22,000 a year, compared with $12,000 for bus riders.

There were a few voices in support of the fare hikes.

Roger Christensen, chairman of the MTA's Citizens' Advisory Council and an appointee of MTA board member Richard Katz, dismissed the idea that the fare hikes were racist, denouncing such claims as "vile and disgusting."

"We do feel this is necessary and very long overdue," he said. "We have to face the structural deficit."

After the vote, Snoble said that the MTA might have to slow future rail projects not currently underway and that he would not be surprised if ridership temporarily drops when the new fares take effect.

Bus riders make up 82% of all MTA boardings. Many have long complained about getting short shrift from the agency. Several groups, including the Bus Riders Union and the NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit against the MTA in 1994 after a major fare increase. Two years later, the agency agreed to enter into a federal consent decree, in which a judge oversaw the way the MTA dealt with bus service.

As part of the settlement, the MTA agreed to increase bus service significantly and not raise fares for seven years. Over the last decade, the MTA bought more than 2,000 new buses.

But it also continued building rail, adding the Gold Line and expanding Blue and Red line operations.

A portion of revenue generated by the half-cent sales taxes county voters approved in 1980 and 1990 must be spent for construction of new rail lines. In some cases, the MTA has also received federal and state funds to build rail projects.

The consent decree ended last year. But after Thursday's vote, some activists vowed to seek a new injunction against the MTA.

Dozens of members of the Bus Riders Union began chanting, "Fight transit racism — and see you in court!" and "Thanks Villaraigosa, you gave a good fight."

*

ron.lin@latimes.com

jeff.rabin@latimes.com

Times staff writer Megan Garvey contributed to this report.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To all participants,

I understand the ramifications of slashing fares, but I also still contend that the average Los Angeles bus rider (generally, third world) will not be able to absorb the increases that have now been authorized!

So when does the baloon bust altogether? (which it will!).

I guess we'll just have to take a 'wait and see' attitude here!

What else can I say?

Mr. Linsky
"the Green Hornet"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Linsky
BusTalk's Offical Welcoming Committee



Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 5071
Location: BRENTWOOD, CA. - WOODMERE, N.Y.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject: 'And Furthermore!' Reply with quote

You have to realize that most of the LACMTA bus riders are the people who 'grease the wheels' of this city, and without them we might just as well fold up!

Now, I've seen the word 'subsidize' bandied about in this forum and the fact that fare increases would, if not reduce such assistances, at least maintain them at their present level.

I don't believe 'subsidies'' should enter this equation at all because they are inevitable now, and they will always be so!

We need our help - whether to wash our dishes, mow our lawns or perform the multitude of tasks that we can't or won't do!

I, for one, am quite willing to pay my share of any augmentation that will keep the transportation system as a viable entity with the ability to deliver the people who perform our basic service needs!

This has become a fact of life that we must live with whether we like it or not!

Mr. Linsky
"The Green Hornet"

69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyberider




Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Tempe, AZ

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 2:10 pm    Post subject: MTA fee hikes still leave rail plans unsure Reply with quote

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta26may26,1,4881939,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

MTA fee hikes still leave rail plans unsure
Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that keeps several projects in limbo.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin and Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writers
May 26, 2007

Even after winning the biggest fare increase in more than a decade, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority still finds itself in a cash crunch that leaves several rail projects in limbo.

If it survives an expected legal challenge, the boost in fares will help stabilize the transit agency's deficit-ridden finances. But the increase is significantly less than what MTA staffers originally sought to close a projected $1.8-billion deficit over the next decade.

That leaves the MTA with a fundamental challenge that has faced the agency since its birth 14 years ago: how to operate a vast bus system while simultaneously building or expanding light-rail and subway lines.

The MTA has dramatically increased its mass-transit network this decade, finishing the Red Line subway to North Hollywood and opening the Gold Line from downtown L.A. to Pasadena and the Orange Line, a busway across the San Fernando Valley. The agency is in the midst of building two more rail lines at a combined cost of $1.5 billion: a downtown-to-Culver City route known as the Expo Line and an extension of the Gold Line from downtown to East L.A.

MTA Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble offered a sober assessment Friday of what comes next.

Although he believes the agency can afford to complete and operate the Culver City and East L.A. lines, he said other transit projects now being considered, including one busway extension, could face significant delays.

"There has been a big expectation that we will get it done sooner than is financially possible," Snoble said. "This whole experience shows we need to be realistic about our expectations…. It may delay some projects."

Among them:

• The Expo Line extension from Culver City to Santa Monica, where officials have already purchased property around the Sears department store near City Hall and plan to convert the store's auto center building into a transit center.

• The Gold Line extension that would run from Pasadena to Montclair, in San Bernardino County, with a possible link ending at LA/Ontario International Airport. The line has been pushed aggressively by officials in the San Gabriel Valley, who have long complained that their region has no light rail service.

• The Green Line extension from its Aviation station near El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.

• The Orange Line extension from Woodland Hills to Chatsworth.

• The much-discussed $4.8-billion "Subway to the Sea" under Wilshire Boulevard that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a top priority when elected.

Only a dream?

Without a massive infusion of state and federal funds, officials said, the Wilshire subway remains only a dream. "That's got a long way to go," Snoble said.

The stakes are high, because there is general agreement that the MTA's current 73-mile rail network simply doesn't go enough places to lure motorists out of their cars. The agency's planners hope that pushing rail and busways farther into the Westside, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay and San Fernando Valley will create a system in which more people can get to their destinations. With L.A.'s population rising, officials worry that congestion on major boulevards and freeways will worsen, slowing bus service further.

The first set of fare hikes, which will hit bus and rail riders July 1, will generate at least $30 million in new revenue the first year, about 11% more than current levels, Snoble said. But it's less than the MTA chief had wanted.

A second wave of increases will be implemented in July 2009, possibly followed by another hike in 2011. That should provide the agency with enough revenue to operate the East L.A. and Culver City lines now under construction, as well as the other bus and rail services.

Already, an intense behind-the-scenes fight is underway between politicians from the Westside and the San Gabriel Valley over what rail project should follow the two now being built.

Westside forces are pushing for the $800-million Expo Line extension, saying traffic in their region is worse and that building a rail link to the ocean would be a huge relief valve. San Gabriel Valley forces say their area is underserved by rail and are pushing for a $1.4-billion route that would end in the fast-growing suburbs of San Bernardino County. (Both projects are at least six to seven years from completion.)

'It is sobering'

Transit advocates Friday said they are worried that the MTA's financial problems could cause delays on their projects.

"It is sobering," said Darrell Clarke, a Santa Monica planning commissioner and co-chairman of Friends 4 Expo Transit. "We need a network of new rail lines, not just a couple of little new ones."

LaVerne Mayor Jon Blickenstaff said the MTA's problems probably mean that the competition for funding will heat up.

"There's a critical need for a better transit system, [but] it's all very expensive to build and operate, and the subsidies are not nearly adequate," he said.

Members of Congress from L.A. County and transit lobbyists in Washington are trying to win approval of special provisions that would allow the local money being spent on the Culver City and East L.A. lines to be used to draw federal dollars for the extensions.

If successful, this effort would give the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Valley lines an extra source of funds. But even Snoble is skeptical. "It's really a hard sell," he said.

The fare increases approved by the MTA board Thursday will significantly increase what riders pay.

The cost of the monthly pass will gradually rise from $52 to $75 by July 1, 2009. The day pass — the most popular pass — will rise from $3 to $6 over the same period. The single-ride cash fare will rise the least, from $1.25 to $1.50 over the next two years.

Critics of the increase have already threatened to sue the MTA in federal court, arguing that the agency is ignoring the needs of working-class bus riders to build a grand rail system. Bus riders and civil rights groups sued the MTA on similar grounds in 1994, resulting in the agency's signing off on a consent decree that kept fares stable and resulted in improved bus service.

Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney who fought the MTA often over the last decade, said Friday that the increased fares will again hit the poor hard.

"They are going to make poor people's lives even more miserable," she said. "It looks like they are back to business as usual."

MTA officials have warned that without the fare increases approved Thursday, they might not be able to operate the Culver City and East L.A. rail lines after they are built.

Such restrictions would also be bad news for some projects in their early planning stages. L.A. officials are pushing for a light rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard and Florence Avenue from the Expo Line to LAX. There are also studies of a downtown route that would connect the Blue Line and Gold Line.

MTA board member Pam O'Connor, a Santa Monica councilwoman, said boosting fares was a difficult decision — but a needed one for the future of mass transit in L.A.

"You have to have a solid foundation," she said. "And, frankly, we were on shaky ground."

jeff.rabin@latimes.com

ron.lin@latimes.com



At risk

Expo Line extension

Where: From Culver City to Santa Monica

Est. Cost: $800 million or more

Purpose: Would bring rail to the beach and traffic-

clogged Westside.

--

Gold Line extension

Where: From Pasadena to Montclair

Est. Cost: $1.4 billion

Purpose: Would connect L.A. rail system to the fast-growing Inland Empire.

--

Green Line extension

Where: From near El Segundo to LAX

Est. Cost: $150 million or more

Purpose: The two-mile route would fill infamous "missing link," connecting rail line to LAX parking lot.

--

Orange Line extension

Where: From Woodland Hills to Chatsworth

Est. Cost: $135 million or more

Purpose: Successful busway would cross the full Valley. Costs less than rail.

--

Purple Line extension

(Wilshire subway)

Where: From Mid-Wilshire to Santa Monica

Est. Cost: $4.8 billion

Purpose: Would run through heart of city. Expensive but potentially popular.

Source: Times reports
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> Surface Transit - Western United States All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group