They’re not buying higher Metro fares

Re “Is 86 cents a ride really too much?” Opinion, April 27

Roger Snoble, the chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, asserts that county taxpayers have been heavily subsidizing Metro riders. I’m skeptical.

This statement ignores many of the indirect costs of individual car use, leaving us with a faulty picture of who’s really being subsidized. If we take into account the costs of lack of parking availability, traffic congestion and. most important, air pollution illnesses and global warming, the equation starts to look a little different. In smoggy Los Angeles, individual car owners are getting a huge freebie -- not having to pay their fair share for polluting our air. Their contribution to mass transit hardly offsets that subsidy. Therefore, I’d like to see an economic analysis that takes health and environmental costs into account before the MTA doubles fares in 2009 on the basis of fairness.

JACKIE PRANGE

Los Angeles

*

Higher fares will ultimately lead to service cuts as riders leave Metro and find other ways of getting around. Metro requires a certain number of people in order to run a bus, and those standards will remain the same after the fare increases. Higher fares will likely lead to large cuts in night, weekend and suburban service as those routes are no longer sustainable, even at the higher fares.

In addition, as riders who have cars get into them and cause congestion, buses will be further slowed. The solution is to implement a modest fare increase while cutting some peak-hour service that is the most expensive for the agency to operate, rather than balancing the full expense on riders who might be willing to wait a few extra minutes rather than pay a fare they can’t afford.

HANK FUNG

Pomona

*

The MTA’s deficit is largely a result of the board’s policy of building rail lines, which are costly to operate and saddle the agency with large debt payments. Meanwhile, the board has failed to make a commitment to cost-effective projects such as the Wilshire Boulevard bus-only lanes.

With global warming and congestion on the rise, Los Angeles can ill afford to lose more transit riders. Let’s keep fares low and focus capital funds on improving the bus system.

CHRISTOPHER KOST

Los Angeles

*

What if public transportation were free -- that is, totally subsidized?

The benefits would be many, mostly stemming from getting people out of their cars: less pollution, less traffic, less wear on roads and, most important, less dependence on oil.

Public transportation will never come close to paying for itself, and while raising rates might increase revenues, it will result in decreased ridership, which is in nobody’s interest.

DAVID KORST

Woodland Hills