Deal? What Deal?

Libby Spencer has an appropriately irate post up on the intention of House Republicans to revisit the deal made last year to avoid a government shut-down.

...With the proverbial certainty of death and taxes, it appears the world's most cowardly Speaker in the history of man, is going to cave into his crazy tea party caucus and engineer another hostage taking government shutdown in September. ...

In other words, forget the deal they made the last time. Under the code of "true" conservatives, it was just a bunch of goddamn words.

A government shut-down just before the November election? What, are they crazy?

Apparently so. Even though they agreed to a certain level of cuts to avoid a shutdown (and a default) through 2013, this group now thinks maybe it would be nice to cut even more, the previous deal be damned.

I wonder who sent the blast fax to provoke this frenzy, especially since it's not just congressional Republicans who have decided to go back on their word. Republican legislators at the state level are doing the same thing. In Minnesota, for example, they've decided that the deal they made during that state's shutdown isn't good enough when it comes to the financing of public transportation.

GOP legislators are pushing increased fares for metro buses, light-rail and commuter trains, part of a longstanding effort to shift more of the cost of transit from taxpayers to riders.

Supporters say a 25-cent hike is justified as gasoline prices rise for motorists, but opponents say the increase would violate a deal that broke the state budget impasse last summer. ...

The Metropolitan Council, which oversees Metro Transit, said the proposal to raise fares would break a deal between DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Republicans last year that ended the state government shutdown.

"We had agreed we were not going to raise fares during this ... budget cycle," said Judd Schetnan, a lobbyist for the Met Council. "We'd like to abide by that agreement."

That budget deal runs until the end of June 2013. Schetnan said the agency would be willing to consider fare increases after that. [Emphasis added]

Now, a quarter doesn't seem like a whole lot of money, but it's a significant increase over the already hefty fares. During off-peak hours, the current adult fare is $1.75. During rush hours, it's $2.25. Elders (over 65) get a break during off-peak, but none during rush hours. A chart which summarizes the fares for Minneapolis public transit is available here.

The "reasoning" behind the proposed hikes is that users should have to pay more for the cost of public transportation so that less of the general fund is used. Ironically, the user-fee argument isn't used for drivers. Gasoline taxes hardly cover the cost of repairing and maintaining streets and highways, yet no one seems to be clamoring for higher taxes at the pump. The argument there is that gas is so expensive that they wouldn't dare. Besides, everybody knows that one of the functions of government is to provide and maintain the roads. Apparently public transportation doesn't qualify for that treatment.

Now, given the rising cost of gasoline and the damage it's over-use is causing the environment, you'd think people would try to find ways to tempt people into using public transportation. If nothing else, it would save some wear and tear on the roadways. You would, of course, be wrong. The obvious target here is not the cost of moving people intelligently but those who depend on public transportation, i.e., the poor. It's always safe to target them.

And so, breaking promises comes easily for the Republicans at all levels, especially when it comes to the vulnerable.

Nothing new here, move along, move along.

MTA On Empty

Last month I posted on the proposed fare hikes for using public transportation in Los Angeles. MTA, the largest service provider in Southern California, projects an operating budget short-fall of about $181 million, and to stop the hemorrhaging intends to raise fares rather dramatically. David Lazarus, business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, took a look at those proposed hikes and suggests the MTA adjust its approach if it really does want to get out of the red zone.

Public transit systems throughout Southern California are preparing to jack up fares this summer. They could use the extra money — the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority alone is facing a $181-million budget shortfall.

But fare hikes aren't the whole solution to public transit's money woes. It's time that the dozens of city- and county-run systems that make up the region's transit network get together and hash out a plan to expand ridership, rather than repeatedly reaching deeper into the pockets of those who already ride the bus. ...

The problem is that most of these systems are focusing solely on short-term financial gain and all but ignoring long-term promotion of public transportation as a practical alternative to traveling by car.

As a result, their money troubles will almost certainly keep growing, our roads and freeways will become even more clogged, and L.A.'s pitiful status as the nation's smoggiest city won't change. [Emphasis added]

As I noted in my earlier post, fares don't come close to covering the costs of a transportation system, and Mr. Lazarus agrees, but his point is that increasing the number of fares would be better than increasing the size of them.

Yet even at these levels, fares will account for only about 28% of total revenue needed to operate the system's buses and rail lines — one of the lower such percentages in the country.

By comparison, fares make up more than half of the operating budget for the Bay Area Rapid Transit network in Northern California and about 36% of New York's municipal system. The rest typically comes from state coffers.

Local transit systems apparently believe the answer to their cash crunch is to make existing riders pay more. I say the answer is getting more people to use public transportation.

He then proceeds to suggests ways the MTA could accomplish that. The trick, of course, is to make public transportation more convenient and more attractive than sitting in traffic, particularly during rush hour. For example, the use of transfers between buses, both within the MTA (a practice abolished in the '90s) and between the various agencies in the area (Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus, Culver City's lines, Foothill Transit, e.g.) would be a practical start. Instead, MTA and some of those other agencies want to end the practice entirely.

Coordinating schedules for the more populous routes would also help. Getting an early start doesn't mean much to a commuter who has to wait 20 minutes for the next bus or train because there is no rational connection between the schedules. Increasing the service on those lines would also make for the kind of ride that might tempt people from their cars. There is nothing worse than standing packed like kippers for another 20 minutes, especially if the commuter is carrying anything (briefcase, lunch, even a handbag).

Ridership rose dramatically during the last surge in gasoline prices when driving became too expensive for most people. When those prices fell back below $3 a gallon, however, most of the new riders went back to their cars. Public transportation didn't learn from that lesson. Now, with gas back over $3 a gallon with promises of further rises premised on the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, MTA and its sister agencies need to reconsider their strategy for staying afloat.

File This Under Stupid

I often have to remind myself that I shouldn't be sanctimonious about my use of and support for public transportation. Yes, I've cut down the size of my carbon footprint here in Southern California by using public transportation exclusively, but I have to admit that if I could drive, I probably would. I spend four or more hours a day during the weekdays on the bus or train, commuting to my job and traveling around as part of my job, and it's exhausting. But I can't drive for medical reasons, so if nothing else, it is in my best interest to be concerned by the news that fares in my area are once again going up.

Amid the worst economic downturn since World War II, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is planning to increase fares for the first time in two years to help offset a $204-million gap in its operating budget for buses and rail systems. ...

Unless the MTA board of directors rescinds the increase, the one-way cash fare will rise from $1.25 to $1.50, a daily pass will go from $5 to $6 and a monthly pass will increase from $62 to $75. Fares will not be raised for people with disabilities, students, Medicare recipients and people who are 62 or older.

"The monthly pass is going up by $13. That's a meal on the table. The typical transit rider only makes about $12,000 to $17,000 a year," said Barbara Lott-Holland of Los Angeles, a member of the Bus Riders Union who relies on the county transit system.

Now fares themselves do not provide the funds necessary to operate a major metropolitan transit system. The MTA relies on a portion of local sales tax revenues, state funding, and some federal grants to keep the buses and trains rolling. Those sources have been reduced dramatically (if not cut out completely) because of the nasty recession we're still going through. Yes, our MTA has gotten some of the federal stimulus funds, but those funds are restricted to new construction programs (dedicated bus lanes, extension of the subway and light rail lines) and cannot be used for day-to-day operations of the existing services.

That's the biggest part of the problem right now, and it's one that could be solved with the help of members of the California delegation in Washington. Lifting at least some of the restrictions on the federal funds would obviate the need to raise fares and reduce service, the only options available to the MTA right now.

At the same time, however, the MTA's Board of Directors also has to recognize that part of their duties involve extensive lobbying of the federal and state governments to fund public transportation adequately, both here and across the nation, something they have not been too adept at lately. California Governor Arnold Shwarzenegger should never have been allowed to cut out funding for public transportation completely, and yet that's exactly what he and the legislature did.

If the economy picks up, and if jobs begin to appear, a functioning bus and rail system will be needed to get people to work. In the mean time, there has to be a better effort than raising fares to cut the shortfall.

Teh Stupid

It's February 7 and California still doesn't have a budget that will deal with the state's financial crisis. I'm beginning to think that we won't see one this decade, even if the federal stimulus package passes in some form, giving California a little breathing room.

The latest proposals from the governor and the Democrats are just as lame as the last set. Both seem determined to placate the recalcitrant Republicans at all costs, and, mark my words, it will cost. One of the sections that I find particularly galling has to do with public transit. An editorial in today's Sacramento Bee nails the proposals beautifully.

Throughout the state budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been fond of saying, "Everyone has to get their hair trimmed." By that he means sacrifice will be required from all sectors. But some who depend on government support have gotten shorter haircuts than others. Transit is a prime example.

Under the governor's latest budget proposal, public transit in California would get more than a trim. It would be shaved bald. The administration proposes to eliminate all state funding for transit. The transit funding proposal put forward by the Democratic majority in the Legislature is only slightly less draconian. Its plans would cut by half the transit funding provided to local transit districts this year, reducing support from $306 million to just $150 million.

The state funding is for operating costs, not new buses or expensive new train lines. Most transit districts in California have hit the wall because of the last budget cuts from the state, which means they are faced with having to raise fares and to reduce service just as Californians are finally getting on board. Make the bus ride more difficult and more expensive and the numbers of Californians on public transportation will drop. Ironically, this will come just as the EPA under the Obama administration reviews its decision on the California emissions proposal. It will also come as the federal government will fund at least some of the public transit projects that will provide a needed update in the systems statewide.

The fare increases and service cutbacks come just as the down economy is forcing many workers to abandon their cars and take transit. According to the American Public Transit Association, bus, subway and light-rail ridership grew in many California cities by 20 percent to 25 percent in 2008. High gasoline prices account for much of the increase, but even as gas prices have come down, ridership gains have not eroded.

The massive transit cuts proposed will also reduce the effectiveness of California's historic efforts to fight greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama administration is poised to give California the authority the state has long sought to impose tougher auto fuel efficiency standards in order to cut harmful global-warming gases. But even with that authority, it will take years to get cleaner cars on the roads.

By contrast, boosts in transit ridership, which the state budget cuts threaten, would have an immediate and direct positive impact on clean air and climate change.

So much for the "Green Governor."

The Wheels On The Bus

Yesterday, Atrios made a good point about one of the problems in getting adequate funding for mass transportation projects: "I was thinking yesterday that part of the problem is that we don't really have the equivalent of the highway building industry to lobby for money. Freight companies throw some weight around, but their interests aren't exactly aligned with those of commuter rail advocates."

True enough. The people who rely on commuter rail and public transportation tend not to be wealthy enough to hire lobbyists. Still, some money in the proposed stimulus package is set aside for mass transit projects, even if it's not nearly enough. That money, however, is designated for new projects, i.e., those that will create jobs to build new lines and stations and to manufacture new, more fuel efficient locomotives, carriages, and buses.

At the moment, unfortunately, most public transportation authorities are facing deeper problems. They are running out of money to keep the existing services operating. Today's Los Angeles Times points to those problems and their roots:

The dramatic spike in gas prices that began in 2005 sent Americans flocking to trains, buses and subways, a trend that appears to have held up even as gas prices have dipped. But 2009 could be a year of crisis for the agencies that run them -- a time of more riders but much less money.

Some new funding could come as part of House Democrats' proposed $825-billion stimulus package, which, in its current form, sets aside $9 billion for public transportation. But all of that money would be used for new capital projects, not operating costs. And it is operating budgets -- the money agencies need to run the systems they have now -- that are getting hammered. ...

In Cleveland, ridership increased for the sixth consecutive year in 2008. But like every major public transit system in the country, Cleveland's relies on both fares and tax revenue for funding -- and county sales taxes, a key component of the budget, have plummeted in the stalled economy ...

The situation is particularly dire in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing a $41-billion state budget shortfall, has proposed eliminating grants to local transit agencies for the current fiscal year and the next -- a move that would save $559 million, according to H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Department of Finance.

In Los Angeles, the transit system has avoided major service cuts, said Marc Littman, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman. But the elimination of the state subsidy -- which provides nearly 16% of the MTA operating budget -- along with shrinking sales-tax revenue, means tough choices lay ahead.

What most people, especially those who don't use public transportation, fail to realize is that fares are not the main source of funding. Local taxes and state and federal subsidies provide the bulk of the monies needed to run public transportation systems. So, while increased ridership is a signal that people are finally willing to be weaned from their automobiles, that increased ridership is not really helping all that much in keeping the buses and trains operating. In some cases, the increased ridership is actually putting additional pressure on the budgets because additional vehicles have been required to keep up, which means increased labor costs in addition to increased capital outlays.

The crunch here is that the local governments are seeing the primary funding sources, usually a combination of sales taxes and property taxes, dry up, and states are having their own budgetary problems, which means state grants to public transportation are being slashed or, as in the case of California, cut out altogether. Existing systems are running out of the money needed to keep the buses rolling today.

Simply raising fares and cutting services isn't going to help. All that will do is drive people back to their automobiles. What will help, at least at this point, is federal funding for existing services to cover the operating costs shortfall. The trick is to convince Congress and the President that if we really do want to become energy independent, if we really do want to cut carbon emissions, then we have to consider local public transportation systems as part of the puzzle, and a significant one.

After all, if people can't get to the jobs created by the stimulus package, then that stimulus package just isn't going to work.

Supertrain Lives!

Admittedly, I love trains. I have ridden in private berths and in standard passenger cars, taken a fall colors route, and an overnight ride from Providence, RI to D.C. with the kids so they could have the experience. When I worked in Dallas I took DART rail into the city almost daily. When I travel, I want to see the country and clear the highways.

When I was in the Big Bend area, seeing an actual passenger train arrive and let off passengers in Alpine, TX, was a thrill. What good sense it makes, to arrive at a gorgeous natural area without having to drive through the congestion in cities, and not polluting our air any further.

There is no hell like trying to drive from North Texas through Dallas or Fort Worth to reach the areas south of here. We really need to take a look at alternate transportation just for travel around the state.

Hearing talk about returning Texas to rail service makes me just deliriously happy.

Could high-speed trains be back in Texas' future?

Visions of bullet trains – like the ones that danced in the heads of Dallas City Council members who toured China earlier this year – may seem a bit dreamy for the Lone Star State.

But as 2009 nears, this much is true: Talk of such passenger rail service, once thought of as forever dead in Texas, is back in vogue, both in Washington and Austin.

A number of signs point to possible success for rail advocates, who for years have been talking up the merits of so-called multimodal transportation planning, but to a mostly unreceptive audience among Texas transportation policymakers.

This month, the U.S. Department of Transportation called for proposals from states and businesses to develop any of 11 federally designated high-speed rail corridors. Proposals are expected across the country, and two of the specified routes run through Texas. One, the Gulf Coast Corridor, enters the state from the southeast and finds its terminus in Houston.

The other route comes in from the north, and runs through Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and more.

No proposals have been made to develop those corridors yet, but U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters was in New York City in recent weeks to urge investors to consider doing just that. The government's vision is to have private firms partner with state and federal governments to jointly develop the rail lines. Proposals are due by September 2009.

Texas ought to start moving if it wants to take advantage of the federal funds, said Peter LeCody of Texas Rail Advocates, a passenger-rail lobbying group. The federal government is promising an 80-20 match with local or state funds – a nearly unprecedented move for rail, which usually requires a 50 percent contribution from local sources.

"Texas is not on the horizon to take advantage of the recently authorized Railway Safety Act," he said, noting the law that has prompted the federal call for programs. "Other states are already planning for high-speed passenger rail corridors, and some have timetables in place to have intercity passenger rail service as early as 2012. Texas does not."
(snip)
The Texas Department of Transportation's executive director, Amadeo Saenz, disputed Mr. LeCody's assertions. He said the department is aware of the call for proposals and is working on a plan.

"If any of the other states are out ahead of us, I'd like to know about it," Mr. Saenz said.

If the department has a weak focus on rail, however, it may have good cause. It has never been allowed to spend money it collects from gasoline sales on rail programs. The Texas Constitution forbids it, though lawmakers have managed to find ways to divert about a half-billion dollars of the funds each year to other uses.

Mr. Saenz said he'd like to see that changed.

I heartily agree. Having a source from gas tax would be particularly rational in view of the congestion it could reduce. The Texas legislature isn't much known for its rational behavior, but when it comes to saving taxpayer money it does come under increasing pressures. We can't build enough roads for the traffic in our urban areas. We can reduce traffic, though, by spending on railroad development.

Besides, it would make Atrios so happy.

Games Governors Play

First, a disclosure: I am no longer able to drive because of a medical condition. As a result, I must rely on public transportation, and in my job, that means I have to travel on buses, light rail, and inter-city trains all over Southern California. I obviously have a personal interest in the funding of public transportation at both the state and federal levels. That's why the information contained in this editorial in today's Sacramento Bee has me hopping mad.

Like a lot of states, California is in one big financial mess, and the red-ink goes for miles. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying desperately to cut the budget so that he won't have to break a very important Republican rule: Never, but NEVER, raise taxes. So far, he's taken the ax to education and state hiring, and now, apparently, public transportation is next. However, to accomplish the last item, he's taken a very interesting route: he commissioned a survey on the use of intercity rail, a survey that used, shall we say, some very interesting techniques.

Intercity passenger trains are the transportation success story of the decade in California. But you wouldn't know it if you read the seriously flawed audit just released by the governor's Finance Department.

The audit is an embarrassment. If the Schwarzenegger administration had set out to deliberately kill intercity rail, it could not have chosen a clumsier set of assassins.

Their survey of ridership on the phenomenally successful Capitol Corridor train service between Roseville, Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose is particularly galling.

Auditors chose last Labor Day weekend to conduct their counts. The Labor Day weekend is traditionally a low ridership period for intercity trains, but last Labor Day was the weekend the Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco was closed for repairs, a fact that had been widely publicized for weeks. Cars could not cross the bridge to San Francisco; neither could the Capitol Corridor's connecting buses that run from Emeryville to San Francisco. Because San Francisco is the final destination for a substantial number of passengers, the Bay Bridge closure that weekend guaranteed low ridership. Yet nine of the 22 trips surveyed by department of finance auditors took place during that three-day weekend.

That was not the only problem with the survey. Like freeways, passenger trains have peak periods, specific times of the day and days of the week trains are most crowded. Of the 22 train trips surveyed, only three took place during those peak times. Freeways are not planned for slow traffic days but for peak periods; trains should be planned similarly. Train capacity needs to be determined by the busiest times. The auditors' methodology failed to do that. The result, intentionally or not, low-balls ridership. [Emphasis added]

I mean, really...that is so clumsy and heavy-handed that even Karl Rove would be embarrassed. That apparently doesn't faze the Governator in the least. Does he think that nobody would challenge a ridership survey taken on a three-day holiday weekend?

The officials of the Capital Corridor, on the other hand, have a different set of numbers, based on both ridership and revenues. Both show dramatic increases over the past ten years. Given the current price of gasoline for passenger cars, I think it safe to say that those increases will continue.

My experience over the past 18 months qualifies only as anecdotal, but I'm willing to bet that the Southern California ridership has also increased dramatically. It's standing room only on a lot of the Metrolink trains (Los Angeles MTA run trains to and from LA Union Station and the outlying cities) and AMTRAK (Pacific Surfliner) during peak commuter periods, and the times I've had to travel during the off-peak period I was hardly the only passenger.

Now, here's why that "audit report" is so important:

Using their flawed surveys, finance auditors concluded that rail equipment for the Capitol Corridor is currently underutilized. That conclusion is nonsensical, and its consequences are potentially devastating. The state is weighing whether to issue bonds urgently needed to buy new rolling stock to accommodate passenger growth. Because it takes three to four years after an order is placed before new coaches can be delivered, any delay could lead to severe overcrowding on the system – and soon.

If people have to stand one to two hours to commute between cities, suddenly the comfort of a single occupancy automobile begins to sound attractive, even with current gasoline prices. More cars mean more gas, which means higher prices, and means more wear and tear on the highways, and means more air pollution, which means more climate change. What part of that causal chain does our allegedly "green" governor not get?

Moron.

Year of the Rat: Innocent Plea on Grounds of Incompetence

First, let me say welcome to the Year of the Rat. Since Rats are supposed to be clever, the Chinese tradition is that the Rat was first in year lineup because Rat rode on the ox, and jumped off just before it crossed the line, finishing first.

Rats are much better respected in nearby Thailand for more than just its cleverness, though. It's also quite the nutritious munchie. After a few nutrition studies, I won't be surprised if, should some disaster ever give us a GoPerv controlled congress and White House again, rat's substituted for chicken on food stamp bennies.

In the spirit of celebrating Rat-ness, I now take you to the topic touched on a few days ago, the Texas Department of Transportation. As reported in the linked story, TxDoT has claimed it can't fund badly needed road projects because of a lack of funds, which turned out actually to mean that funds were being diverted abundantly to publicity aimed at getting the public to accept a proposed mammoth toll road project.

Yesterday, in the spirit of the year, officials at TxDoT covered themselves with glory by maintaining that instead of theft of public funds they were actually guilty of incompetence. Even in the TX Lege, that was a little hard to stomach.

The Texas Department of Transportation made a billion-dollar error, officials of the agency admitted Tuesday under stern questioning from legislators, a mistake they said contributed significantly to TxDOT's sudden cash crunch.
(snip)
..........with so-called "lettings" for 2008 trimmed to $3.1 billion, TxDOT officials announced huge cuts in spending on right of way and project design, as well as a freeze on the start of many road projects that were ready to go. That sudden halt to projects got legislators' attention -- and their goat. The Legislature and voters last year gave the agency authorization to borrow an additional $8 billion -- though $5 billion of that will require further legislative action in 2009 -- and so legislators don't like that crucial road projects are suddenly up on blocks.

It didn't take long after the freeze announcement for the idea to take hold that TxDOT was manufacturing a crisis to coerce legislators into backing away from the limits on private toll road contracts.

Tuesday's alternative explanation may have been only partially helpful to the agency.

"So, what you're saying is, it's not a political effort on your part," Watson said. "It's a lack of competence."

Where would you look for a better excuse for criminality than in the category of "stupid"? My compliments to the thief.

In a state that is now dealing the hands to play in a monumental toll road gamble (Trans Texas Corridor), up to its elbows in bids for more paybacks, what the state really, really doesn't need is a TXDoT that can only excuse its misconduct as incompetence.

What's a billion dollars between friends?

First of all, the Legislature and the transportation department aren't to be confused for friends. And second, TxDOT's billion-dollar miscalculation in road-building funds is more than a little fuzzy math.

It's simply awful fiscal management and – what's more important – a chance for the department's critics in the Legislature to draw into question TxDOT's fundamental direction.

The department needs to build bridges to lawmakers, and fast.
(snip)
TxDOT has been getting heat from lawmakers for the agency's multimillion-dollar public awareness campaign to sell its transportation approach, "Keep Texas Moving."

It's even more important now to get good, useful information to a legitimately more skeptical bunch, state lawmakers. It's important for TxDOT to eliminate obstacles to lawmakers' understanding of the funding predicament. Failure means the public wastes more time and money idling needlessly in traffic.

We will forgive the Dallas Morning News editorial board for inability to resist a few road puns, after all the a.m. saw another round of sealife puns at Eschaton and I admit I scaled up a few of them.

When state legislative bodies don't exercise oversight over public funds, it often goes unnoticed. When it works up to the national level, and in this instance straight out of the TX playbook into the White House, we are being victimized by outright theft at every level.

Elections for the primary are to be held on March 4, here in Texas. We will have a chance to choose reputable elected officials, and it is high time to take a really close look at the work they do.

The horrors the GoPervian administration has inflicted on the country, and on the State of Texas, need to end. We can't accept lies anymore. Incompetence isn't an adequate excuse, in Austin or in D.C.

I most especially ask that if you are in the 4th District, you vote for Dr. Glenn Melancon, who would bring a new high quality of service to the House of Representatives. We can't afford to keep out pockets open and draining. We've had enough of lies, and loss of this country's constitution, and its values.

Please. Think of the children.

L.A.'s Public Transit Mess

Los Angeles continues to treat public transportation as a red-haired stepchild. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, the region's main public transportation governing body met last night in a public session to discuss the astounding fare hikes being proposed. Everyone present knew that the proposed hikes were outrageous, and put forth just so a "compromise" set of numbers could be generated to stave off the financial disaster which really is just around the corner. That's exactly what happened.

First, some background. Because of a federal consent decree, there have been no fare hikes for the past ten years, and the MTA has been forced to buy more and newer buses to improve service. The federal court ruling, while necessary, did put the MTA system in quite a hole, one which the MTA did nothing to dig itself out of.

Here's the Los Angeles Times summary of the results from last night's meeting, along with a chart that shows what the new fares look like.

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.












What the Metropolitan Transit Authority didn't apparently consider is that fares cannot be the only source of revenue any more than property taxes can be the only source of revenue for schools.

Steve Lopez, one of the LA Times better columnists for local matters, made a couple of quite obvious suggestions in his column this morning lambasting the MTA decision.

...State and federal officials are culprits in the collective failure to support transit, despite the growing social and economic cost of congestion and pollution-related illness. Where's bold, creative leadership when you need it?

Would the option of a few high-speed toll lanes for Los Angeles motorists raise enough money to buy the buses the MTA needs?

Is it time to mandate that large companies offer transit vouchers to employees and eliminate free parking?

Does the efficiency of smaller transit systems in Santa Monica, Culver City and the foothill cities suggest that the MTA should be broken into smaller regional agencies?

Is it time to increase the 18-cent federal gas tax or use more of it to fund transit?

Should developers get bigger incentives for building near transit centers?

It's time for the MTA board and the Southern California Assn. of Governments to lead a discussion on these kinds of solutions and fight for their support here, in Sacramento and Washington. As it is, they're on a slow bus to nowhere.

That's a nice start, Mr. Lopez. Nicely said.