Reassess decision on fares

Re “Transit fare hikes called unwise,” April 28

The thorny question of whether to raise fares or reduce service or both will always plague us. Someone, some way, somehow will have to come up with the money to pay for high-quality mass transit and other transportation needs.

I really don’t think James E. Moore of USC speaks for all bus riders when he says they all dream of using a car instead. I also doubt whether the Bus Riders Union speaks for all transit riders, especially because the consent decree they helped impose is what got us into this mess. Although I don’t think that the proposed sharp increase in rates is realistic or appropriate, the need to separate those who are truly indigent from those who can easily afford to pay a fare is paramount. We have to either enhance revenue to improve our service or reduce our service. Pick one.

KENNETH S. ALPERN

President

The Transit Coalition

Los Angeles

*

Raise the basic transit fare to $2 from $1.25? Insane. San Francisco has the right idea. Mass transit should be subsidized, partially or totally, and the lion’s share should be paid by people who drive cars.

Many of us bus riders are happy to ride the bus, reduce our carbon footprint and maybe even have time to read the paper on the way to work. There should be more buses, not fewer, and if it takes more taxes to do it, so be it. The pullback from catastrophic global warming is not going to be painless. But it’s not going to be accomplished by raising fares when we should be trying to encourage more people to use mass transit.

JIM HOFFMAN

West Hollywood

*

If a cost-benefit analysis of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority budget were done for each mode of transit separately, it would be found that, with the proposed fare increase, we will have bus riders massively subsidizing rail riders. Is this good social policy? The proposed fare increase gives the opportunity for a sobering reappraisal.

It was made obvious by the Orange Line, if it was not obvious already, that the most cost-effective means of enhancing mass transit is through the bus system. The rail option is for a time when a massive commitment to mass transit has been achieved in this metropolitan area. Our mass-transit system needs many more capillaries. Until that happens, more main arteries remain irrelevant except of course in terms of cost.

By putting rail first, we assured ourselves the burden of high cost before we had any chance at all of high ridership.

SIEGFRIED OTHMER

Woodland Hills

*

Low-fare schemes convert transit systems into overcrowded floating motels for vagrants and truant youths. It keeps motorists in their cars and only gains ridership from existing riders making more trips. This is a Trojan-horse scheme designed by those who never ride transit.

The Citizens’ Advisory Council of the MTA has voted unanimously to urge the board to drop its bargain-basement fares and have the courage to address the operating deficit emergency with fares in line with the realities of this decade.

ROGER CHRISTENSEN

Chairman, MTA Citizens’

Advisory Council

Sherman Oaks

*

If I were a used-car dealer, I would lobby hard on behalf of MTA’s proposed fare increases.

ART DETMAN

Pacific Palisades