Metrolink Weighing Fare Increase Options

Metrolink officials, who operate the region’s 416-mile commuter rail system, often caution people not to confuse them with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Maintaining that distinction seemed to be on the minds of Metrolink officials Friday as they began deliberating an average 13% increase in ticket prices over the next four years on the fast-growing network.

The board of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority--the official name of Metrolink’s governing body--made no commitment on how big a fare increase it would approve, if any.

Officials asked for more options, questioning whether a smaller increase was possible. They also told their staff to better prepare to explain why a fare increase is necessary, and how service will improve if prices are raised. Bill Davis, a Simi Valley councilman who serves on the board, said the agency must show the public that it is “going to get something for” its money. The staff’s proposed three-step price increase is the first in Metrolink’s more than five years of operation and would affect about 13,000 commuters who ride the periwinkle-and-white trains.

Under the proposal, a monthly pass for a Northridge-to-downtown Los Angeles or Santa Clarita-to-downtown commuter would increase from $144 to $153 this fall, $159 in 2000 and $163 in 2002. For an Irvine-to-Los Angeles commuter, the monthly pass would go from $176 to $187 this fall, $193 in 2000 and $199 in 2002.

Board members asked their staff to study alternatives, such as a 25-cent increase for every trip, which would equate to an $8 increase in the cost of the monthly pass.

Richard Stanger, Metrolink’s executive director, said the commuter rail agency is “affected by the same cost-of-living increase as everyone else.” He noted that the county transit agencies, including the MTA, which provide tax subsidies to fund Metrolink, face their own financial pressures.

Davis appeared to have the MTA in mind when he sent a letter to his colleagues stating: “If a transit agency is mismanaged or insolvent, why should passengers of other non-related transit systems be financially penalized by paying unnecessary higher fares for the appearance of equity?”

The MTA separately is considering a 50-cent increase--from $1.35 to $1.85--in the fare for riding the Red Line subway and the Blue and Green light-rail lines.

Metrolink officials have said that the MTA fare increase has put added pressure on them to raise prices. Metrolink pays the MTA directly so train commuters can transfer to the subway without having to stop to buy another ticket.

The proposed fare increases raise more perplexing questions about transportation policies that seem to be peculiar to Los Angeles.

Why, for example, does Metrolink have distance-based or zone fares, charging commuters based on how far they travel, while the MTA doesn’t? As a result, a ride on the short subway costs as much as a 22-mile trip on the Blue Line.

And why is Metrolink seeking funds to buy rail cars when the MTA will be receiving rail cars for lines that won’t be built for years, if ever? (A Metrolink official said the subway and light-rail cars ordered by the MTA would not meet federal strength requirements for use on tracks used by Metrolink. Metrolink shares the tracks with freight trains, and cars must be strong enough to withstand a possible collision.)

Or consider this: If the subway fare is increased, Metrolink expects to have to pay the MTA about $1 million more so its train riders can transfer to the subway. Since the MTA provides about 60% of Metrolink’s tax subsidies, the MTA will give Metrolink $600,000 back to cover the new expense.

So why doesn’t Metrolink just send the MTA a check for $400,000 in the first place?

The answer lies in something the transit bureaucrats call “the color of money.” The MTA has commuter rail money that it cannot use for its own bus or train operations. But it can give the money to Metrolink. In turn, Metrolink pays the MTA $1 million, which can be used for operations.

As for the proposed fare increase, some Metrolink board members expressed concern that it would drive away riders, possibly worsening the agency’s financial condition.

But Stanger said he thought most train passengers would pay a 6% price increase this year rather than endure long drives on congested freeways. He also said he expects “normal” ridership growth to more than make up for lost passengers.

Larry Zarian, an MTA board member who also serves on the Metrolink board, urged the board not to wait so long that it becomes necessary to enact an even larger fare increase. That was what the MTA did, he noted.

The result: Police in riot gear had to be called out to the MTA board meeting.