3010 Wilshire Blvd. #362, Los Angeles, CA 90010
213.388.2364

Southern California Transit Advocates is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion, development and improvement of public transportation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

Hank Fung's statement at the 2007 fare increase hearing

Mr. Fung made comments at the fare hearing, in addition to those made by Southern California Transit Advocates.


• Public Records Act request denied: what is Metro hiding from its riders? How much ridership loss will occur when fares are doubled? Usually, a 10% increase in fares results in a 3% ridership loss. How will traffic be impacted when the fare paid by most people double or even triple and 30-60% of riders leave the system? How will a fare increase impact conformity for the Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Transportation Plan?
• MTA Administrative Code: Requires an “assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed change, including any impact on energy conservation.” That analysis has not been made to the public.
• FTA Circular 4702.1A: Violation of the FTA Regulations can lead to loss of federal funding or reduced standing in competitive programs such as New Starts. Does offering sixty seconds to individuals with a poor command of English violate Circular 4702.1A? What is Metro’s Locally Developed Evaluation Procedure? Was a federally mandated Equity Assessment conducted? Please note that Santa Clara VTA was rated “deficient” in 2006, a situation that could easily happen to Metro.
• Title VI concerns: It is a violation when an individual can purchase what is essentially a day pass (one way Metrolink ticket, which under the EZ Pass agreement, can be used for all boardings during the day) for less than the cost of an equivalent Metro Day Pass, and when a Metrolink monthly pass (which is, per the EZ Pass agreement, is equivalent to a EZ Pass, with the exception of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus) is less expensive than a Metro monthly pass (2009). The location of these Metrolink fare machines are not equitably distributed throughout the county. This “Metrolink loophole” has been made known to Metro staff, and if riders become aware of this loophole, the loss to revenue will be extremely significant.
• Transit “death spiral”: An often cited example is Santa Clara VTA. Between 1997 and 2005, average fare increased 94%, yet farebox recovery remained the same, at a miserable 12%. The reason? Riders fled the service: ridership dropped from 52.9 million boardings to 38.5 million boardings, a 28% drop. (Please note the dates chosen: this does not include the spike in ridership from the dot-com boom. A similar result can be said of 2000 to 2005.)

Therefore, I urge the Metro Board to:
• Reject the 2009 fare increase as it is clearly excessive and will result in revenue loss through the exploitation of the Metrolink loophole and ridership shifts to municipal operators.
• Readvertise a fare increase that provides ample opportunities for public input, provides mitigation of the social and environmental impacts, and is consistent with all federal regulations and with other transit agencies in the Western United States. While a fare increase is necessary, it should be graduated and not excessively penalize students, seniors, and monthly pass users.
• Create a plan that reduces costs further through programs such as contracting service to private operators, reducing peak hour service to the national load standard (150% on bus during peak hour), reducing off peak and eliminating weekend service on Metro- controlled Metrolink lines, and closure of the Metrolink loophole
• Accept that 38% is not achievable. No bus operator (over 200 buses) in the West Coast achieves a 38% farebox recovery ratio. Set a more realistic target.
• Continue advocating for increased funding from Sacramento. Support Villaraigosa’s attempt to get the Public Transportation Account spillover, and use that to cover expenses for a few months until a responsible, sustainable fare plan can be developed.

Attachments: Public Records Act denial, excerpts from the MTA Administrative Code and Circular 4702.1A, and NTD information for Santa Clara VTA for 1997 and 2005 were provided to the Metro Board.