Chicago's CTA is dedicating $25 million to cleaning up 100
This weekly post features news from other transit agencies and planners from around the world. Did we miss a good story? Let us know in the comments. Hat tip to Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic for digging up a lot of good stories and posting them on Twitter @TTPolitic.
UTA looking at distance-based fares (Salt Lake City, Utah)
The Utah Transit Authority — which runs commuter, light rail and buses in the Salt Lake area — is taking preliminary look at switching from a flat fare system to one that charges commuters varying amounts depending on how far they travel. An agency spokesperson told KSL news, “by lowering the fare for the short trips, we’ll increase our ridership, while at the same time collect the necessary revenue that will allow us to meet our (financial) goals.” UTA is projected to face a $70 million revenue shortfall thanks to the recession, at a time when the agency is trying to extend the reach of its transit system.
Mayor, CTA chief won’t rule out fare increase (Chicago, Ill.)
These days, if you’re a big-city transit agency, then you’re probably experiencing recession-induced budget problems. That’s certainly the case in America’s Second City, where new Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Transit Authority President Forrest Claypool are not ruling out increasing fares to close a budget gap. Presently, the base cash fare is $2.25. The silver lining is that the agency has found enough savings to invest $25 million in some badly needed station maintenance on its heavy rail “L” train system, parts of which are over 100 years old.
Changes mean more Purple Line and trail grade-separation (Bethesda, Md.)
Just outside the nation’s capital, planners at the Maryland Transit Administration are hashing out the finer details on its proposed Purple Line, a light rail line that will travel for 16 miles along an old rail corridor. Sound familiar? Indeed, current and future Metro Rail lines in L.A. County also use old rail rights-of-way as well, so it’s interesting to see how other agencies are handling the benefits and challenges of reusing old infrastructure. Greater Greater Washington has all the details.
Metro clears federal hurdle for $900M in rail grants (Houston, Tex.)
Houston Metro signed a funding agreement with the feds last week that will bring the agency around $900 million over five years. The funds will go toward construction of northern and southern segments of the city’s nascent light rail system. Here’s our look at Houston’s transit expansion plans from June.
Charlotte, N.C. gets $25 million for streetcar project
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood touted on his blog, Welcome to the Fast Lane, that the Federal Transportation Administration has awarded $25 million towards the 10-mile starter line. The project will help connect the Charlotte Transportation Center, the Presbyterian Hospital, and Central Piedmont Community College, among other destinations. As we noted back in April, Charlotte is one of many cities in the U.S. that stands to benefit if Congress approves America Fast Forward. Here’s the press release from the FTA.
Massachusetts needs $15b for rail, highway and bridge projects, panel warns
More rough financial news: The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority alone has a $4.5-billion maintenance backlog on its rail system. To keep up with transportation repairs, the state has been borrowing a lot of money of late — so much so that “seventy-four cents out of every $1 in the state’s Transportation Trust Fund…gets drained for debt payments,” according to the Boston Globe. The state legislature seems to recognize the need to raise more revenue, but remains queasy about raising the state’s gas tax, even though it has steadily lost value since 1991.
Farebox recovery is less important in Los Angeles than it is in a lot of other “comparable” systems, it is more heavily subsidized here with a dedicated source of income. That by virtue puts LA Metro in a more advantageous position. More so, regarding the expansion, it is already paid for by Measure R which is a projected and temporary tax increase for the County and other money borrowed from the federal government at a low rate of interest.
The comparison of BART to LA Metro Rail is apples and oranges, BART would be more fairly compared to our MetroLink commuter rail system, which has distance-based fares and relatively low overhead costs (except our use of diesel) like BART. LA Metro Rail and buses would be more accurately compared to SF Muni (a county operated local service system same as Metro) but they have $2.00 fare and an automatic 2 hour transfer upon purchase.
@Steveland
I disagree that BART and LA Metro Rail is a comparison of apples and oranges. The metropolitan area of LA is too big for the entire city to be covered on a single flat rate model.
Even the Gold Line, when upon completion, is supposed to go all the way to Ontario Airport, that’ll be almost 40 miles of track that is under a single flat rate fare model. Would it make sense to pay $1.50 all the way from Ontario to Union Station, as opposed to paying the same price $1.50 price from Little Tokyo to Union Station? It’s darn obvious that it can’t be sustained forever.
The only other solution, under existing flat fare model is to hike fares for everybody, or hike taxes for everybody. But where does it end? $2.00? $3.00? 15% sales tax? 20%? The flat rate is broken.
The more Metro Rail expands, it doesn’t become “local” anymore, the distinction between local and commuters become diluted as it starts to spread out farther beyond its intent.
“Farebox recovery is less important in Los Angeles than it is in a lot of other “comparable” systems”
And the solution is to keep taxing everyone to make up the cost of providing public transit. Hoorah for socialism!
Let’s all shoot for the goal of making public transit in LA like the Pyongyang Metro where it costs 3 cents to go anywhere in the city of Pyongyang, but everyone is dirt poor except for a handful of elites who get around the city on comfortable Mercedes!
Whats up with the talk of the “failure” of NYMTA and CTA. Those agencies are only facing problems not from their operations budget (New York has a fairly high farebox recovery in its subway and urban bus lines were fares cover 70% of the cost. sourced from the NY MTA budget documents) but rather from their systems aging infrastructure that needs heavy capital investments for repairs. NY MTA capital budget deficit keeps increasing with no end in sight.
Goverments regardless of whether a transit system is public or private have usually assisted transit agencies when it came to capital projects.
Distance fares should’ve been implemented long time ago. My public transit use is less than 8 miles over two buses which cost me $3.00 one-way. Why do I have to pay $3.00 for 8 miles when someone else can ride one bus for $1.50 over 10 miles? It makes no sense at all.