Here’s the news release from Metrolink:
LOS ANGELES – After skipping a fare increase last year, the Metrolink Board of Directors approved a seven percent average systemwide fare increase to go into effect on or after July 1, 2012. Funds generated from the increase will be used exclusively to help close a $13 million funding gap for the fiscal year 2012-13 budget.
“This is a last resort to be able to continue to offer the safe transportation options the region needs without cutting service. We’ve streamlined our operations and continue to keep the majority of our costs and headcount flat, despite a nine percent increase in ridership,” said Metrolink Board Chairman Richard Katz. “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 in large part because of an increase in our operations contracts due to a sweeping nationwide labor negotiation settlement and a 56 percent increase in fuel costs over the past two years.”
Of the $13 million funding gap, the fare increase will only generate $4.5 million dollars. Increased subsidy from Metrolink’s five member agencies will cover the remainder of the funding gap.
Specific cost increases include:
•$4.2 million increase in major contractor costs including but not limited to the rise in Amtrak’s contract to reflect their nationwide labor settlement
•$4 million increase in fuel costs (in the past two years, Metrolink’s fuel costs have increased by 56 percent)
•$1.3 million in connecting transit transfer costs for Metrolink riders
•$2.5 million for post-employment benefits, which weren’t previously budgeted for. (This is not a new cost or an increase in benefits. It’s being included in the budget for the first time this year.)
This proposed fare increase is independent from the 2004 Board adopted policy to restructure fares from zone-based 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 7 percent increase, the Metrolink Monthly Pass will cost approximately $20.00 more beginning on or after July 1, 2012. However, the impact of the fare increase varies depending on the type of ticket, distance traveled and where the trip begins and ends.
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, in addition to federal and state law that requires a public hearing before fares can be modified. Public comments and suggestions on the proposed fare increase and Title VI Service Delivery Policy were collected beginning April 27, 2012. Metrolink conducted additional public meetings across its five-county service area to allow the public to weigh-in on the board’s pending action. Approximately 159 individuals – about .7 percent of Metrolink’s daily riders – submitted comments regarding the fare increase. Seventeen individuals provided comments on the service delivery policy.
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.
Nobody likes to hear about fare increases, but Metrolink really gets stuck with the short end of the funding stick.
They could use more double-tracking, TAP pylons, less freight interference, TAP pylons, better equipment, and maybe even electrification.
Yes, I said TAP pylons twice. I really want to see those.
Funny you never hear about pay cuts to close the budget gaps.
Finally no loophole for us to buy the lowest-fare Metrolink one-way ticket and use it as a Metro day pass + local EZ day pass, without actually having to board a Metrolink …. so sad =)
Hi Frank;
Metrolink is facing a $13-million gap and is already a small agency. I’m not sure how of anything outside of massive cuts to salary would close that gap, unless you think Metrolink employees deserve only the smallest of wages or no wages at all. No one likes a fare increase but Metrolink is hardly the only transit agency in America to have to raise prices over the past few years.
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
And yet the US is also the only country whose mass transit fares are increasing while most other cities in the world, again to repeat the same thing these over and over these days again, notably transit systems in Asia, are able to stabilize their fares without fare hikes for years and yet still able to churn a profit that doesn’t rely on taxpayer support?
Wouldn’t that be a cause to say America is doing transit wrong? So why is LA looking at failing examples of other cities in the US whose fares and taxes keep rising with poorer level of service when the answers are right across the Pacific?
Is it that really that hard to call Singapore? Hire mass transit consultants from Tokyo? Headhunt and scout transit experts and officials from Taipei and Hong Kong?
Stop comparing with other transit agencies in the US as an excuse for higher fares, higher taxes, and poorer service.
“Other transit cities in the US have raised their fares” So what? Is that an excuse that we should accept and deal with it because we’re just taxpayers?
I counter that lame excuse with why then are transit fares in Asia have remained flat yet they are still able to make profits. What is it they are doing right to avoid such fare hikes?
America’s public transit is a mess because of illogical decisions, and for those poor decisions they have been making, the officials deserve a pay cut. If they don’t like it, they can seek jobs elsewhere. We’re better off using taxpayer funds to bring over transit officials brought over from Asia than paying millions of dollars of pay to American transit officials and politicians who have no idea how to run transit right.
Hi Frank;
It would be great if you can show other readers that the U.S. is the only country where fares are increasing. I have no idea if that’s correct.
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
Steve,
JR East has not made a major fare hike yet it is profitable
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/ar/2005/pdf/ar2005_15.pdf
“Meanwhile, JR East has not raised fares since its establishment in 1987, except to reflect consumption tax introduction (1989) and revision (1997). In contrast, during the same period, most of the other major passenger railway companies have been compelled to raise fares more than once to offset sizable investments needed to boost capacity. As a result, JR East’s price competitiveness has risen steadily. Without fare increases or large capital expenditures, JR East has been able to achieve a capacity increase over the 18 years since its establishment equivalent to roughly 3 times the average capacity of its major Tokyo competitors”
Taipei MRT no fare increases in 15 years and yet still profitable!
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?99434-Taipei-MRT-no-fare-increases-in-15-years-and-yet-profit-S-15m-in-2010
HK MRT raises its fares for the first time since 2007 at an astonishing 34 cents (USD $0.04) under their fare adjustment in line with inflation, while earning HK$14.7 billion in profits last year. Note that fare hikes in the HK MRT is much less impacted as cost of transit is based on distance traveled
http://asiancorrespondent.com/79291/mtr-fare-increase-201/
Hi Frank:
Thanks. Well, that’s three agencies. I think there’s more than that outside of America. Whatever. No need to waste your time reading the entire Internet. I just wanted to flag readers that I have no idea whether your statement is accurate.
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
Metro should look in the real estate endeavors of other agencies around the world rather than have its head blogger become defensive and dismissive over Internet arguments. There’s some progress at Union Station with the businesses that have come in. I wonder what kind of rent Metro is collecting.
Steve,
Is there a reason why these three operators that Frank M gave as an example are able to keep fares stabilized for so long and still make profit? Why can we not replicate that here?
They have to be doing something right and we have to be doing something wrong here.