Metro shouldn’t let issues fall to passengers by increasing fare

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s fare hike from $1.50 to $1.75 went into effect last Monday. Despite ardent protests, the board voted on May 22 to implement the hike, a move that will deal a heavy blow to the city’s low-income residents. The fare hike is an attempt to fix issues at the expense of poor passengers without efforts to mitigate the damage.

 

With the original cost of $1.50, the L.A. Metro had the lowest rate among the nation’s major transit systems. San Francisco’s Muni fare is $2, while New York City’s subway fare is $2.50. Yet, unlike either city, Los Angeles is largely a transit system for the poor, with few upscale and middle-class commuters. According to the Los Angeles Times, more than 90 percent of Metro riders are low-income, with the average passenger household making less than $20,000.

The 25 cent increase might look modest at a glance, but the same can’t be said about the $25 increase for the monthly pass used by frequent passengers.

The Metro Board voted to raise fares because a deficit that could reach $225 million in the next decade. Yet, despite that, Metro is still going forward with costly expansion plans that include the construction of five new lines. Ironically, though the expansion is supposed to better the system for riders, the increased operating costs place the burden on loyal passengers who can’t afford to pay more.

Last May, more than 130 people publicly asked Metro directors to change their minds about the fare hike at the final hearing, according to the L.A. Times. For many, the cost of the hike amounts to more than just a mere quarter. Some were in tears as they spoke of having to choose between buying tickets and feeding their families. Riders, regardless of socio-economic status, shouldn’t be forced to make such decisions. It’s almost unbelievable to think that charging the poor more was the best solution Metro Board members could come up with to fix Metro’s financial problems.

The city needs to do more to mitigate this situation for low-income riders, including making it easier for them to find out about the agency’s fare subsidy programs, be it through advertising at train stations and bus stops or stopping by to talk to community groups.

For one, the Metro’s Rider Relief Program allows $10 off a monthly pass. The maximum household income for eligibility is $28,500. And yet, the program is very underused, not only because it’s not advertised as much as it should be, but also because when information is finally found, the application requires appointments with third-party organizations. The hassle is enough to deter many, especially if $10 barely makes up for the $25 increase.

Instead of letting the problem of sustainability fall to the passengers, Metro should not only mitigate the damage, but also fix the issues that have let it come to this. There is no way plugging the budget with money from the large numbers of low-income riders will be a long-term solution.

Despite years of spending and promotion, the biggest issue seems to be failure to diversify Metro ridership. The agency needs find a way to do so — even if it means shifting some of the system’s cost onto drivers to make it less appealing for cars to be on the road. What’s done is done, but that doesn’t mean Metro should make life more difficult for those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

 

Valerie Yu is a junior majoring in English. She is also the editorial director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.