Support UCLA Urban Planners against the MTA fare increase!
Sign Now
To: MTA Board
From: UCLA Urban Planning students, faculty, and staff
Date: May 24th, 2007
Re: Proposed MTA fare increases
As many of you are aware, the UCLA Urban Planning program prides itself on being historically focused on social equity and justice. We believe that urban landscapes can heavily influence the civil rights and opportunities available for those who have been marginalized and oppressed, and transportation is absolutely fundamental for every citizen of Los Angeles county to achieve their full potential.
Public transportation riders can be divided into two categories: those who have a car and choose to take transit, and those who are transit-dependant. The reality is that many people cannot afford a car or insurance, so they become reliant on public transportation to help them sustain their livelihood. If the proposed MTA fare hikes proceed as planned, they will prove disastrous for public transportation. Those who have a car will choose to not take transit, and those who have no other options will be forced to take less trips which will greatly hinder their mobility. The proposed MTA fare hikes are counterproductive. Instead of generating more revenue, they actually decrease ridership, and potentially result in less overall revenue for the MTA.
Not only will transit riders be directly affected by the fare increase, the public at large will be affected as well. People with a choice between public transit or a car will choose to drive more thereby making our streets more congested as well as polluting the environment. Mayor Villaraigosa has created initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases in the city of Los Angeles, and this fare increase will prove to be counter-productive in reducing pollution.
We acknowledge that the MTA is facing mounting deficits and something must be done, although we believe such an extreme flat-fare increase will not be the answer to the MTAs problem. We encourage MTA to explore alternative options. One idea suggested is to implement a variable fare, which would charge riders based on whether they travel during peak hours and the distance they travel. On the surface, we admit it seems like a daunting task to transform MTAs current pricing system to one that would incorporate variable fares but other cities throughout the United States and the world have successfully incorporated such a system. San Francisco and Washington DC currently are cities that successfully utilize variable fares. International cities such as Bangkok, Thailand and Curitiba, Brazil are also two countries that utilize variable fare pricing. If two cities in developing nations can incorporate variable fare pricing, we see no reason why a city like Los Angeles could not. Using a variable fare option it is both equitable and economically efficient and would encourage more riders to use it for short trips. The MTA can generate more revenue by having more riders pay less instead of less riders paying more.
If the variable fare is not feasible for the MTA, we believe that a smaller increase is acceptable. It is unrealistic to increase fares by more than 100\% because transit rider incomes will not increase to match. A family of four would be forced to pay $480 for four monthly passes. At that cost, it would be more economically reasonable for them to purchase a car, pay for insurance and gas as well.
We also encourage the MTA to seek more federal and state funding to pay for not only for upcoming projects, but also for operational funding as well. We are well aware how aggressively the MTA fights for rail funding, and propose that some of those resources could be directed towards maintaining the bus lines and keeping the fares at a reasonable cost.
The MTA uses the justification that other cities charge a much higher fare than Los Angeles, but we believe that this is not a valid excuse. The examples that the MTA cites, such as San Francisco and New York, do offer a higher flat-rate fare than Los Angeles, but the transfers are much cheaper or free in some cases.
Attached is the name and signature of almost every single Urban Planning student, faculty, and staff member, as well as various other UCLA students against the proposed fare increase. Transportation is a right, and should not be considered a privilege, especially in a county as large and as densely populated as Los Angeles.
From: UCLA Urban Planning students, faculty, and staff
Date: May 24th, 2007
Re: Proposed MTA fare increases
As many of you are aware, the UCLA Urban Planning program prides itself on being historically focused on social equity and justice. We believe that urban landscapes can heavily influence the civil rights and opportunities available for those who have been marginalized and oppressed, and transportation is absolutely fundamental for every citizen of Los Angeles county to achieve their full potential.
Public transportation riders can be divided into two categories: those who have a car and choose to take transit, and those who are transit-dependant. The reality is that many people cannot afford a car or insurance, so they become reliant on public transportation to help them sustain their livelihood. If the proposed MTA fare hikes proceed as planned, they will prove disastrous for public transportation. Those who have a car will choose to not take transit, and those who have no other options will be forced to take less trips which will greatly hinder their mobility. The proposed MTA fare hikes are counterproductive. Instead of generating more revenue, they actually decrease ridership, and potentially result in less overall revenue for the MTA.
Not only will transit riders be directly affected by the fare increase, the public at large will be affected as well. People with a choice between public transit or a car will choose to drive more thereby making our streets more congested as well as polluting the environment. Mayor Villaraigosa has created initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases in the city of Los Angeles, and this fare increase will prove to be counter-productive in reducing pollution.
We acknowledge that the MTA is facing mounting deficits and something must be done, although we believe such an extreme flat-fare increase will not be the answer to the MTAs problem. We encourage MTA to explore alternative options. One idea suggested is to implement a variable fare, which would charge riders based on whether they travel during peak hours and the distance they travel. On the surface, we admit it seems like a daunting task to transform MTAs current pricing system to one that would incorporate variable fares but other cities throughout the United States and the world have successfully incorporated such a system. San Francisco and Washington DC currently are cities that successfully utilize variable fares. International cities such as Bangkok, Thailand and Curitiba, Brazil are also two countries that utilize variable fare pricing. If two cities in developing nations can incorporate variable fare pricing, we see no reason why a city like Los Angeles could not. Using a variable fare option it is both equitable and economically efficient and would encourage more riders to use it for short trips. The MTA can generate more revenue by having more riders pay less instead of less riders paying more.
If the variable fare is not feasible for the MTA, we believe that a smaller increase is acceptable. It is unrealistic to increase fares by more than 100\% because transit rider incomes will not increase to match. A family of four would be forced to pay $480 for four monthly passes. At that cost, it would be more economically reasonable for them to purchase a car, pay for insurance and gas as well.
We also encourage the MTA to seek more federal and state funding to pay for not only for upcoming projects, but also for operational funding as well. We are well aware how aggressively the MTA fights for rail funding, and propose that some of those resources could be directed towards maintaining the bus lines and keeping the fares at a reasonable cost.
The MTA uses the justification that other cities charge a much higher fare than Los Angeles, but we believe that this is not a valid excuse. The examples that the MTA cites, such as San Francisco and New York, do offer a higher flat-rate fare than Los Angeles, but the transfers are much cheaper or free in some cases.
Attached is the name and signature of almost every single Urban Planning student, faculty, and staff member, as well as various other UCLA students against the proposed fare increase. Transportation is a right, and should not be considered a privilege, especially in a county as large and as densely populated as Los Angeles.
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
0 signatures
Goal: 50
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
