Here’s the news release from Metrolink, the commuter rail agency funded in part by Metro:
Metrolink Conducting Public Outreach Process for Potential 5-9% Fare Increase and Title VI Service Delivery Standards
Increase in fuel costs and contracts due to labor agreements drive $13 million funding gap for FY 12-13 budget
Los Angeles – On April 27, the Metrolink Board of Directors directed staff to initiate a public outreach process for a potential system-wide fare increase to help close an existing $13 million funding gap for Fiscal Year 12-13 budget and Metrolink’s proposed Title VI Service Delivery Policy. The public will be asked to give feedback regarding an average system-wide fare increase between 5 and 9 percent to go into effect on or after July 1, 2012.
“Last year, we were able to delay an increase to passenger fares and member agency subsidies while increasing train service by 14 percent. This year, despite continued efficient management practices, our costs have increased mostly because of the rising cost of fuel and an increase in our operations contracts due to a sweeping nationwide labor negotiation settlement,” said Metrolink CEO John Fenton. “A fare increase is a last resort to be able to maintain current service levels. The proposed fare increase will only cover a portion of the funding gap. It would take a 20 percent fare increase to cover the entire funding gap. Metrolink member agencies are also being asked to increase their subsidy to reduce the amount of the fare increase to passengers.”
The major increases include:
•$4.7 million increase in fuel costs (in the past two years, Metrolink’s fuel costs have increased by 78 percent)
•$3.2 million in increases to contracted vendor costs due to a nationwide labor agreement
•$1.3 million in connecting transit transfer costs for Metrolink riders
•$1.0 million in the Bombardier contract to support the rail reliability program and increased car cleaning costs associated with the additional rolling stock additions to the fleet.
•$2.5 million for post employment benefits, which weren’t previously budgeted for
“The current economic climate, including soaring fuel prices, requires tough decisions by transportation leaders to fund operations at a level that will continue to meet the region’s transportation needs. Many transportation providers across the country and in the Southern California region are faced with the same challenges, and have responded by raising fares up to 35 percent,” Fenton said.
This proposed fare increase is separate from the 2004 Board adopted policy to restructure fares from a zone-based fee to mileage-based fares over a 10-year period. The phased restructuring is not meant to generate additional revenue for Metrolink, but was implemented to ensure a fair and equitable fare policy. When combined with the proposed 5-9 percent increase, this could result in increases of up to 13.58 percent for less than one percent of Monthly Pass holders and up to 20 percent for less than one percent of one-way or roundtrip tickets. The average increase across the system would be between 5 and 9 percent, however. Fare tables are posted online and will be available at public workshops and at the public hearing to help members of the public determine the potential fare increase’s impact to them.
As a recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, Metrolink is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to carry out the United States Department of Transportation’s Title VI regulations. Comments and suggestions on the proposed fare increase and the Title VI Service Delivery Standards may be submitted orally or in writing at a public hearing to be held on May 30, 2012 at a special-called meeting of the Metrolink Board of Directors or submitted in advance (by May 29, 2012 at noon) of the public hearing by clicking on the “eComment” option at www.metrolinktrains.com/ecomments. Comments can also be submitted by mail in advance of the public hearing by sending feedback to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at the SCRRA headquarters located at One Gateway Plaza, Floor 12, Los Angeles, CA or faxed to the attention of “Metrolink Fares” at (213) 452-0429. No public comments will be considered after the public hearing scheduled for May 30, 2012 begins.
Metrolink will also hold public meeting workshops across its five-county service area to provide additional information to the public and solicit additional input from the public. The locations of these meetings will be announced by May 6 online at http://www.metrolinktrains.com and in handouts on the trains.
ABOUT METROLINK (www.metrolinktrains.com)
Metrolink is Southern California’s regional commuter rail service in its 19th year of operation. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, governs the service. Metrolink operates over seven routes through a six-county, 512 route-mile network. Metrolink is the third largest commuter rail agency in the United States based on directional route miles and the seventh largest based on annual ridership.
@Spokker
We’ve already taxed gas many times and it’s not working as hoped.
In fact, as gas prices rise, people are just moving onto more cheaper alternatives like the motorcycle or the scooter. Since their fuel efficiency is much better than cars, it actually doesn’t bring any increase to funds. In fact, it does just the opposite; people drive less of the car, more of the motorcycle; overall there’s a marked decrease in tax revenue.
These are the same pitfalls that happened in NY and Boston. We don’t want to replicate that here. Taxes aren’t the only solutions at hand. There are better alternatives that we haven’t tried yet.
Taxing gas as a means to raise more revenue is based upon the same short sighted theory as oil companies: people will continue to drive cars no matter what the cost.
The harsh reality is that raising gas taxes don’t do as much good as tax-gas proponents hope for. It’s simple Economics 101; petroleum is a hard commodity. Taxes shift the curve to affect demand. The tax amount that is added to the shift eventually affects tax revenues. In the end, there’s less tax revenue than before.
This is more so true when there are other alternatives to the car. Raising taxes on gas is expectant that people will drive cars. But let’s look at Taiwan. They tax gas heavily so car ownership there is low. Yet, how do native Taipeites move about the city? Instead of traffic jams with cars, they have traffic jams with scooters.
This is what tax gas proponents expect. For a 20 mile commute (10 mi in each direction) on a 18 MPG car:
(20 mi / 18 MPG) x $4.10/gal gas = $4.56 for commuting 20 miles
$4.56 x 10 gal tank in the car = $45.60 per week
Let’s just add 5 cents to gas so that it’ll become:
(20 mi / 18 MPG) x $4.15/gal gas = $4.61 for commuting 20 miles
$4.61 x 10 gal tank in the car = $46.10 per week with $0.50 going to mass transit funds! Yeah, sounds logical right?
WRONG.
With an alternative to cars called the motorcycle or scooter, increasing number of people will begin doing this, just like Taiwan:
(20 mi / 80 MPG scooter) x $4.15/gal gas = $1.04 for commuting.
$1.04 x 1.5 gal tank of a scooter= $1.56 per week with only $0.075 going to mass transit funds.
Increasing taxes just made one person move to a scooter. And since scooters are much more fuel efficient, there’s less frequency and gallons needed to fill up the tank, so overall, the County see a big drop in tax revenues.
And if you’re think I’m making this up, look around. Don’t you see a lot more motorcyclists on the roads today in LA? Harley Davidson is enjoying 26% increase in sales from last year:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/148506395.html
Figures really. LA enjoys terrific weather for most of the year. More and more people are realizing they don’t need a car to commute, they can do just as fine with motorcycles which offer the same freedom as the car. Why take public transit when motorcycles are cheaper?
“We’ve already taxed gas many times and it’s not working as hoped.”
The federal gas tax hasn’t been raised since the early 90s.
The other downsides you mention could be mitigated with a VMT. However, tolls would probably be most efficient if a transponder is used.
“Taxing gas as a means to raise more revenue is based upon the same short sighted theory as oil companies: people will continue to drive cars no matter what the cost.”
I’m not necessarily in favor of raising the gas tax in order to discourage people from driving. I want a user fee for driving to be raised so that roads and highways pay for themselves, preferably 100% and beyond. There are negative externalities that exist that justify this.
Again, what you describe is a downside of the gas tax. VMT or tolls would be more efficient.
@Spokker
At the federal level yes, but we’ve placed taxes on gas on the state, county, and local levels many times with no results. Measure R itself is a gas tax at the local level as well. All of these were meant to fund mass transit for the State and local levels, but again, taxing gas do not work as they hope.
In Los Angeles, we pay 41 cents a gallon in taxes when adding up all federal, state, and local gas taxes. That’s actually 13 cents more per gallon than New York.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/news/31057914_1_sales-tax-excise-tax-restaurant-tax/2
In the end, adding up all these taxes, compounded with rising fuel prices, just made more Angelinos move from Toyotas and Fords to Kawasakis and Harleys.
Gas taxes are like any other tax to some degree in that they discourage use of that product, which is a good thing in the case of gasoline usage since it results in pollution, clogged streets, national trade deficit, tens of thousands of deaths in the US, and so forth. Actually gasoline usage is somewhat inelastic. Even at $4 a gallon, people still drive SUVs in huge numbers. There really aren’t many scooters or motorcycles out there in any real numbers. One takes their life in their hands riding them in Los Angeles.