OCTA service cuts
Bill Cousert
as 50%, all because of California's current budget crisis.
It seems Santa Ana is going to be hit the hardest. Both UCI and John
Wayne Airport will be without service.
Night Owl service will be totally eliminated.
Why don't they raise fares instead? If they temporarily doubled fares,
they would still only be $3.00.
Personally, I'd rather pay double than risk losing my job because I
don't have the means to get to work.
Kymberleigh Richards
<mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why don't they raise fares instead? If they temporarily doubled fares,
>they would still only be $3.00.
Because even a doubling of fares would not make up the difference in
the subsidies formerly received from Sacramento before they
"indefinitely suspended" the State Transit Assistance account.
The STA, for those not in the know, is the only state money given to
transit agencies that can legally be used to operate service. All the
other funding (which the state didn't touch) must be used for either
building a project or buying new buses and the like.
If you want this to change, I suggest that, rather than criticizing
OCTA -- who are by no means the only agency in the state having to
reduce service because of the lost STA funds -- you write your State
Senator or Assemblymember and tell them how their short-sighted
decision had a negative effect on you as their constituent.
Kymberleigh Richards
Public & Legislative Affairs Director
Southern California Transit Advocates
davidm...@gmail.com
On Apr 24, 8:26 pm, Kymberleigh Richards <kricha...@socata.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Cousert
>
Kymberleigh Richards
>How will this affect LA MTA & San Diego?
It already is affecting them both.
San Diego MTS had service cuts earlier this year and is considering a
fare increase. NCTD is also considering raising fares.
Metro has handed off one line in the South Bay to a municipal
operator, and is looking to hand off at least two more. Come December
they will lower service frequency slightly by eliminating selected
trips (for example, if there are three trips carrying a two-thirds
load each, those will become two trips carrying full loads) and by
shortlining some trips where ridership drops significantly past a
certain point on the route. They will look at more drastic measures
beginning in June of next year, unless replacement funding is found.
(It should be noted that, as part of the passage of Measure R last
November, Metro agreed not to raise fares until June 2010, and senior
fares are frozen until June 2014.)
There isn't a transit agency in the state that isn't considering
service reductions, fare increases, or both.
Bobby Shafto
"Kymberleigh Richards" <kric...@socata.net> wrote in message
news:ut4135ho0gjp7h33c...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT), "davidm...@gmail.com"
> <davidm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How will this affect LA MTA & San Diego?
>
> It already is affecting them both.
>
> San Diego MTS had service cuts earlier this year and is considering a
> fare increase. NCTD is also considering raising fares.
>
> Metro has handed off one line in the South Bay to a municipal
> operator, and is looking to hand off at least two more. Come December
> they will lower service frequency slightly by eliminating selected
> trips (for example, if there are three trips carrying a two-thirds
> load each, those will become two trips carrying full loads) and by
> shortlining some trips where ridership drops significantly past a
> certain point on the route. They will look at more drastic measures
> beginning in June of next year, unless replacement funding is found.
> (It should be noted that, as part of the passage of Measure R last
> November, Metro agreed not to raise fares until June 2010, and senior
> fares are frozen until June 2014.)
>
> There isn't a transit agency in the state that isn't considering
> service reductions, fare increases, or both.
>
Maybe it's time to consider privatizing transit. Just a generation or so
ago, all transit in L.A. was privately owned. People paid their nickel to
ride the Red Car and Pacific Electric made money, even during the worst part
of the depression. We had a system that went virtually everywhere. Everyone
was happy!
So why can't we go back? Why can't we let private industry rebuild the
wonderful system we had less than 50 years ago? Why do we need the
governments hand in transit?
el...@no.spam
Bobby Shafto <we...@tosea.org> wrote:
>Maybe it's time to consider privatizing transit.
Oh, yeah, that's the answer. *snort*
Bobby Shafto
<el...@no.spam> wrote in message news:1245890...@no.spam...
And why not? The privately owned transit companies were doing fine until the
state forced them out of business.
davidm...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT), "davidmetzg...@gmail.com"
in response to this iwas in L A in april and a bus operator gave me
one of those temporary senior tap cards how long are they valid for
and where can i fill them near lax ?
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
No, sir, they were not.
Remember that a privately owned company must turn a profit for its
shareholders, while public transit companies have no such obligation.
It is fairly well known -- except for those who have a romanticized
vision of the private ownership days, and who have not researched the
actual facts -- that the original MTA (the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority) was created in 1958 after the private companies
begged to be taken over.
As nostalgic as it is to remember the days of the Pacific Electric red
cars, which were closer to a commuter rail system (think Metrolink)
than a transit rail system, Huntington never made money with it. He
created the PE network to take potential customers out to the land he
was developing (Huntington was more the father of suburbia than he was
the father of mass transit in Southern California), and made all his
money on the developments.
PE, along with Los Angeles Transit Lines, were only "forced out of
business by the state" because the state refused to allow them to
raise fares to the proper levels for fully covering costs. Indeed, it
is only under government operation that transit can be fully funded.
Here's another reality check for you: There isn't a single transit
agency in Southern California that even makes 40% of their operating
costs back from the farebox (which includes pass sales and the like).
So under your dream of privatizing transit, expect a fare hike of 200%
or more, or expect all of the low-performing (but essential for
connectivity) lines to be cancelled because they are unprofitable.
Privatization of transit would provide lower levels of service, at a
higher cost to the passengers. Is that what you are advocating?
Kymberleigh Richards
>in response to this iwas in L A in april and a bus operator gave me
>one of those temporary senior tap cards how long are they valid for
>and where can i fill them near lax ?
Too late. The temporary senior/disabled TAP cards will no longer
function on Metro's fareboxes after this Tuesday, June 30. The chip
inside them "expires" on that date.
davidm...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:04:25 -0700 (PDT), "davidmetzg...@gmail.com"
>
> <davidmetzg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >in response to this iwas in L A in april and a bus operator gave me
> >one of those temporary senior tap cards how long are they valid for
> >and where can i fill them near lax ?
>
> Too late. The temporary senior/disabled TAP cards will no longer
> function on Metro's fareboxes after this Tuesday, June 30. The chip
> inside them "expires" on that date.
Where can i buy the cards near LAX?
mrpanitz
Kymberleigh Richards
You cannot buy a senior/disabled TAP card.
With the temporary cards expiring, the only valid senior/disabled
cards will be the ones with the user's name and photo on it, which has
to be applied for through Metro.
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
Not the senior cards he asked about, Mark.