In yet another cut to Metrolink services, the former College Student Discount program has been discontinued. The program allowed students to order monthly and 10-trip passes through their college offices (including UCR's Parking and Transportation Services) at a 25% discount. In an effort to decrease administration costs, the discount has been cut to 10%, and the passes will now be available through Metrolink TVMs- students must carry their student IDs while riding.
These changes go into effect on June 30th, 2010. More info here.
Showing posts with label fare hike. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fare hike. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Service Cuts- Banning/Beaumont Edition
Pass Transit quietly approved service cuts to their already meagre offerings in Banning and Beaumont. Route 3 will no longer offer Saturday service, and the span of service has been reduced for routes 3 and 4 on weekdays. Route 3 will now operate between 6am and 6pm, and Route 4 will operate between 6:45am and 6:30pm.
Also, a reminder- for the first time in recent memory, RTA buses WILL NOT OPERATE on Memorial Day, Monday 31 May.
Also, a reminder- for the first time in recent memory, RTA buses WILL NOT OPERATE on Memorial Day, Monday 31 May.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Service Cuts- Corona Edition
I noticed in the Press-Enterprise (twice) that the Corona Cruiser was looking to raise fares and cut services, but I never saw in the paper just when public hearings on the changes would be held. (Both articles mentioned hearings, but not times and dates.) Nor were any explicit proposals discussed, so I e-mailed Corona's transportation department about the cuts, and I got a response back yesterday.
For fare hikes, there's nothing terribly unreasonable. They generally bring their fares (currently $1.25 for general cash) in line with RTA's, which is probably only a sensible response to inflation. However, the service cuts are something else entirely. On weekdays, the Cruiser currently runs from 5am to 8pm. The current proposal slashes three hours a day of service on the system, on both the Red and Blue lines- buses would run from 6am to 6pm, a total loss of 7 Red line and 6 Blue line trips on weekdays. On Saturdays (the Cruiser doesn't provide Sunday service) it gets even worse- the bus currently runs from 8am to 6pm, and it would be pared back to run from 9am to 3:30 in the afternoon. This would make it the only transit system I know that would be incapable of handling a 9-to-5 job, on any day of the week. The Red line would lose 8 trips, and the Blue line 7 on Saturdays. Now, RTA provides service along 6th Street in Corona, on the workhorse Route 1 seven days a week, but the southern portions of Corona are 5 miles or more away from 6th Street. Route 3 also serves Corona, but once again, only the northern portion- it turns around just south of Corona Regional Medical Centre at 10th Street, still inside the circle of Grand Blvd. This move would leave substantial swaths of the city of Corona without access to public transportation past 3 in the afternoon on Saturday.
The public hearings on this issue will be held on May 13th at the Corona City Library, once at 10am and again at 6:30pm. I'll post the official details of the service cuts as soon as I find some file space to host them- they're large PDF files.
For fare hikes, there's nothing terribly unreasonable. They generally bring their fares (currently $1.25 for general cash) in line with RTA's, which is probably only a sensible response to inflation. However, the service cuts are something else entirely. On weekdays, the Cruiser currently runs from 5am to 8pm. The current proposal slashes three hours a day of service on the system, on both the Red and Blue lines- buses would run from 6am to 6pm, a total loss of 7 Red line and 6 Blue line trips on weekdays. On Saturdays (the Cruiser doesn't provide Sunday service) it gets even worse- the bus currently runs from 8am to 6pm, and it would be pared back to run from 9am to 3:30 in the afternoon. This would make it the only transit system I know that would be incapable of handling a 9-to-5 job, on any day of the week. The Red line would lose 8 trips, and the Blue line 7 on Saturdays. Now, RTA provides service along 6th Street in Corona, on the workhorse Route 1 seven days a week, but the southern portions of Corona are 5 miles or more away from 6th Street. Route 3 also serves Corona, but once again, only the northern portion- it turns around just south of Corona Regional Medical Centre at 10th Street, still inside the circle of Grand Blvd. This move would leave substantial swaths of the city of Corona without access to public transportation past 3 in the afternoon on Saturday.
The public hearings on this issue will be held on May 13th at the Corona City Library, once at 10am and again at 6:30pm. I'll post the official details of the service cuts as soon as I find some file space to host them- they're large PDF files.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Service Cuts. Again.
Really, I'd love one day to get up and post on this blog about the massive new service expansion that RTA is planning. If only RTA would get around to planning one. At least I have good news to report about the City from time to time.
Nope, here I get to fire up the 'ole intertubes and tell you all about the latest service cuts that our meagre little transit system is going to suffer from. And this time around, Riverside is most certainly NOT spared.
The bulk of these cuts are to weekend service, most of them eliminating one trip in the morning, one in the evening, or both. Routes that are seeing cuts of this kind are: 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, and 27.
The following routes are losing more than one trip on either end of the schedule on weekends: 16, 18, 20, and 21.
The 13 is losing the first morning run westbound, and is also losing a weekday school tripper. (If a school tripper is under consideration for cancellation, I support it- if those buses aren't packed, something's wrong.)
The 14 is losing a trip in each direction on weekend mornings, and two on Sunday mornings. The service frequency will also be "expanded" (downgraded) from 70 to 80 minutes. As if it wasn't bad enough already.
Routes 32 and 42 are losing weekday morning trips, with 42 also losing a mid-afternoon run (another school tripper). The 42 will also be "expanded" (downgraded) on weekends from the current 50 minutes to 140, probably the most egregious cut in this proposal.
Route 57, the Temecula Trolley, will be cut entirely. This route had the same failings as route 52 (in that it only runs for a few choice hours a day), and has now lost its funding. No surprise here, and really no loss.
There's one route left, the 25, but I first want to talk about these nighttime service cuts generally. Somebody at the Southern California Transit Forum, and I forget who, made a very good point- nobody wants to be on the last bus. No matter when the last bus of the night is, there will always be depressed ridership, because nobody wants to miss that bus. RTA is cutting a lot of these nighttime buses because they have low ridership, and they may find that the low ridership will simply move back a trip.
Now, on to the 25, the only route to see route modifications. Aside from the weekend trip reductions, and an "expansion" (downgrade) of frequency from 70 to 80 minutes, RTA wants to remove the section of the route that travels along Barton through Grand Terrace and Loma Linda, replacing it with freeway running along I-215 and I-10, from Barton to Anderson. This is a spectacularly bad idea. My wife drives that stretch of freeway often, and I've had occasion to enjoy a drive along Anderson from Barton to the 10. These are highly, highly congested corridors. I usually exit the freeway at Mt. Vernon and take Barton over the hills, simply to avoid the heavily-trafficked mess that is the 215 south of Colton. Not to mention Anderson St., which is a narrow road controlled largely by stop signs, and one that is handling far, far too much traffic for its size. I fully support the RTA's idea of discontinuing service along Barton in San Bernardino County- Omni already runs half-hourly service there, and RTA isn't paid for by San Bernardino County residents, let's be honest- but freeway running is NOT the way to do it. Instead, I think that RTA should run the 25 as a closed-door service, eliminating all stops between the current last stop in Grand Terrace, Barton at Glendora and running directly to the VA Hospital. Alternatively, the route could discharge only while travelling northbound past Glendora, and pick up only while travelling southbound, but I think this would be confusing for riders who aren't used to such arrangements. The surface streets may be slower at some off-peak times (though probably not most), but the added reliability of schedules on the surface streets will be a definite asset to the route. Freeway running will make things miserable for anyone that rides #25, and furthermore will end all service into Grand Terrace proper. (Yes, I know Grand Terrace is in San Bernardino County, but the 25 is currently their only public transit. Perhaps RTA could pursue funding from SANBAG or the City of Grand Terrace for the portion of the route that runs in their county?)
Public meetings are scheduled to solicit input on these service cuts. Let me first admonish anyone that the best way to advocate for a particular trip or route is to come up with a way to fund it, and the second-best way is to show a need that is met by this route that is essential, and that will go unmet if the route is cancelled. That said, here's the meeting schedule:
Monday, March 1
10:00 Multipurpose Room, Corona City Hall
400 S. Vicentia Ave., Corona, CA
Route 1, Corona Cruiser Red & Blue
14:00 Lake Elsinore Senior Activity Centre
420 E. Lakeshore Dr., Lake Elsinore, CA
Route 7
18:00 Moreno Valley Council Chambers
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA
Routes 11 & 20
Tuesday, March 2
10:00 East Room, San Jacinto Community Centre
625 Pico Avenue, San Jacinto, CA
Routes 42 & 74
14:00 Room R1, Kay Cisneros Community Centre
29995 Evans Rd., Sun City, CA
Routes 40 & 61
14:00 Craft Room, Mary Phillips Senior Centre
41845 Sixth St., Temecula, CA
Routes 23, 24 & 57
18:00 Perris Council Chambers
101 N. D St., Perris, CA
Routes 19, 27 & 30
Short walk from Perris Transit Center, Routes 19, 22, 27, 30, 74, 208, 212
Wednesday, March 3
10:00 Room 2, Beaumont City Hall
550 E. 6th St., Beaumont, CA
Route 210, Pass Transit 2, 4, and Calimesa Route
18:00 Board Room, RTA Headquarters
1825 Third St., Riverside, CA
Routes 10 & 13
Short walk from 3rd & Chicago, Routes 1, 16, 22, 25, and 51
(If you want to say hello, I'll be at this meeting.)
You can also, as always, comment via e-mail at comments@riversidetransit.com, calling 1-800-800-7821, or writing to:
Director of Planning
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third St.
Riverside, CA 92507
Nope, here I get to fire up the 'ole intertubes and tell you all about the latest service cuts that our meagre little transit system is going to suffer from. And this time around, Riverside is most certainly NOT spared.
The bulk of these cuts are to weekend service, most of them eliminating one trip in the morning, one in the evening, or both. Routes that are seeing cuts of this kind are: 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, and 27.
The following routes are losing more than one trip on either end of the schedule on weekends: 16, 18, 20, and 21.
The 13 is losing the first morning run westbound, and is also losing a weekday school tripper. (If a school tripper is under consideration for cancellation, I support it- if those buses aren't packed, something's wrong.)
The 14 is losing a trip in each direction on weekend mornings, and two on Sunday mornings. The service frequency will also be "expanded" (downgraded) from 70 to 80 minutes. As if it wasn't bad enough already.
Routes 32 and 42 are losing weekday morning trips, with 42 also losing a mid-afternoon run (another school tripper). The 42 will also be "expanded" (downgraded) on weekends from the current 50 minutes to 140, probably the most egregious cut in this proposal.
Route 57, the Temecula Trolley, will be cut entirely. This route had the same failings as route 52 (in that it only runs for a few choice hours a day), and has now lost its funding. No surprise here, and really no loss.
There's one route left, the 25, but I first want to talk about these nighttime service cuts generally. Somebody at the Southern California Transit Forum, and I forget who, made a very good point- nobody wants to be on the last bus. No matter when the last bus of the night is, there will always be depressed ridership, because nobody wants to miss that bus. RTA is cutting a lot of these nighttime buses because they have low ridership, and they may find that the low ridership will simply move back a trip.
Now, on to the 25, the only route to see route modifications. Aside from the weekend trip reductions, and an "expansion" (downgrade) of frequency from 70 to 80 minutes, RTA wants to remove the section of the route that travels along Barton through Grand Terrace and Loma Linda, replacing it with freeway running along I-215 and I-10, from Barton to Anderson. This is a spectacularly bad idea. My wife drives that stretch of freeway often, and I've had occasion to enjoy a drive along Anderson from Barton to the 10. These are highly, highly congested corridors. I usually exit the freeway at Mt. Vernon and take Barton over the hills, simply to avoid the heavily-trafficked mess that is the 215 south of Colton. Not to mention Anderson St., which is a narrow road controlled largely by stop signs, and one that is handling far, far too much traffic for its size. I fully support the RTA's idea of discontinuing service along Barton in San Bernardino County- Omni already runs half-hourly service there, and RTA isn't paid for by San Bernardino County residents, let's be honest- but freeway running is NOT the way to do it. Instead, I think that RTA should run the 25 as a closed-door service, eliminating all stops between the current last stop in Grand Terrace, Barton at Glendora and running directly to the VA Hospital. Alternatively, the route could discharge only while travelling northbound past Glendora, and pick up only while travelling southbound, but I think this would be confusing for riders who aren't used to such arrangements. The surface streets may be slower at some off-peak times (though probably not most), but the added reliability of schedules on the surface streets will be a definite asset to the route. Freeway running will make things miserable for anyone that rides #25, and furthermore will end all service into Grand Terrace proper. (Yes, I know Grand Terrace is in San Bernardino County, but the 25 is currently their only public transit. Perhaps RTA could pursue funding from SANBAG or the City of Grand Terrace for the portion of the route that runs in their county?)
Public meetings are scheduled to solicit input on these service cuts. Let me first admonish anyone that the best way to advocate for a particular trip or route is to come up with a way to fund it, and the second-best way is to show a need that is met by this route that is essential, and that will go unmet if the route is cancelled. That said, here's the meeting schedule:
Monday, March 1
10:00 Multipurpose Room, Corona City Hall
400 S. Vicentia Ave., Corona, CA
Route 1, Corona Cruiser Red & Blue
14:00 Lake Elsinore Senior Activity Centre
420 E. Lakeshore Dr., Lake Elsinore, CA
Route 7
18:00 Moreno Valley Council Chambers
14177 Frederick St., Moreno Valley, CA
Routes 11 & 20
Tuesday, March 2
10:00 East Room, San Jacinto Community Centre
625 Pico Avenue, San Jacinto, CA
Routes 42 & 74
14:00 Room R1, Kay Cisneros Community Centre
29995 Evans Rd., Sun City, CA
Routes 40 & 61
14:00 Craft Room, Mary Phillips Senior Centre
41845 Sixth St., Temecula, CA
Routes 23, 24 & 57
18:00 Perris Council Chambers
101 N. D St., Perris, CA
Routes 19, 27 & 30
Short walk from Perris Transit Center, Routes 19, 22, 27, 30, 74, 208, 212
Wednesday, March 3
10:00 Room 2, Beaumont City Hall
550 E. 6th St., Beaumont, CA
Route 210, Pass Transit 2, 4, and Calimesa Route
18:00 Board Room, RTA Headquarters
1825 Third St., Riverside, CA
Routes 10 & 13
Short walk from 3rd & Chicago, Routes 1, 16, 22, 25, and 51
(If you want to say hello, I'll be at this meeting.)
You can also, as always, comment via e-mail at comments@riversidetransit.com, calling 1-800-800-7821, or writing to:
Director of Planning
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third St.
Riverside, CA 92507
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
2009: The Year in Transit
As we say good-bye to the noughties, I'd like to take a look back at Riding in Riverside's first full year in operation, 2009.
In January, La Sierra University joined U-Pass, Greyhound service was struggling to remain in the city, and RTA was trying to overcharge day pass riders.
In February, we got the first announcement of the 2009 service cuts, the stimulus bill pumped money into IE freeways, and Greyhound stranded me downtown.
In March, I got a statement from the Mayor on public transit, dug up evidence of RTA's RapidLink project, and discovered the wonders of grocery delivery.
In April, the first seeds of the multi-modal transit centre were planted, Councilwoman Hart said some stupid things about Greyhound, and I made my endorsements in the City Council elections.
In May, I tried to turn readers into riders, commented on the proposed Short-Range Transit Plan, and Omnitrans deprived people of barbecue.
In June, I laid out my proposal for a Riverside light rail, Google Transit for RTA went up for the first time, and our late-night service was cruelly taken away.
In July, LA Metro joined Google Transit, the City Council made a dumb decision about parking fines, and RTA's data fell out of Google Transit, because it was apparently requiring transfers somewhere north of Guam.
In August, I talked about my trip to NYC, the City Council approved what would become Riverside Go Transit, U-Pass, and took a clear step towards the multi-modal transit centre, I proposed my solution to Metrolink capacity issues, and I gave an interview with a local podcast.
In September, Omni saw a fare hike, the first RTA service ever to run past midnight began service, and OCTA disconnected the 794 from, well, everything else.
In October, I reminded folks about transfer policies, called out a Congressman for hypocrisy, and celebrated my 23rd birthday with official news of the new multi-modal transit centre.
In November, I reported on upcoming Dial-a-Ride policy changes, Riverside became a Bronze-level bicycle-friendly community, and the Corona Transit Center broke ground. Also, Los Angeles celebrated the opening of the Eastside Gold Line Extension.
In December, SANBAG started studying Victor Valley express bus options, Metrolink proposed draconian service cuts- and then did nothing about them, and the Riverside Go Transit program launched, offering cheap bus passes to all Riversiders.
Looking forward into the new year, service changes are coming on January 10th, and we can hope for progress on the Riverside transit centre and the Perris Valley Line, both of which cleared significant hurdles in 2009.
Also, readers should know: Greyhound has NOT left Riverside. The new signage on the Greyhound building downtown, marking it as a police station (which it is), does not mean that service to the station has ceased. The station is open 7am-3:30pm and 6pm-9pm daily.
I'd like to wish all my readers a happy and prosperous new year, and I hope for a better transit system in 2010.
In January, La Sierra University joined U-Pass, Greyhound service was struggling to remain in the city, and RTA was trying to overcharge day pass riders.
In February, we got the first announcement of the 2009 service cuts, the stimulus bill pumped money into IE freeways, and Greyhound stranded me downtown.
In March, I got a statement from the Mayor on public transit, dug up evidence of RTA's RapidLink project, and discovered the wonders of grocery delivery.
In April, the first seeds of the multi-modal transit centre were planted, Councilwoman Hart said some stupid things about Greyhound, and I made my endorsements in the City Council elections.
In May, I tried to turn readers into riders, commented on the proposed Short-Range Transit Plan, and Omnitrans deprived people of barbecue.
In June, I laid out my proposal for a Riverside light rail, Google Transit for RTA went up for the first time, and our late-night service was cruelly taken away.
In July, LA Metro joined Google Transit, the City Council made a dumb decision about parking fines, and RTA's data fell out of Google Transit, because it was apparently requiring transfers somewhere north of Guam.
In August, I talked about my trip to NYC, the City Council approved what would become Riverside Go Transit, U-Pass, and took a clear step towards the multi-modal transit centre, I proposed my solution to Metrolink capacity issues, and I gave an interview with a local podcast.
In September, Omni saw a fare hike, the first RTA service ever to run past midnight began service, and OCTA disconnected the 794 from, well, everything else.
In October, I reminded folks about transfer policies, called out a Congressman for hypocrisy, and celebrated my 23rd birthday with official news of the new multi-modal transit centre.
In November, I reported on upcoming Dial-a-Ride policy changes, Riverside became a Bronze-level bicycle-friendly community, and the Corona Transit Center broke ground. Also, Los Angeles celebrated the opening of the Eastside Gold Line Extension.
In December, SANBAG started studying Victor Valley express bus options, Metrolink proposed draconian service cuts- and then did nothing about them, and the Riverside Go Transit program launched, offering cheap bus passes to all Riversiders.
Looking forward into the new year, service changes are coming on January 10th, and we can hope for progress on the Riverside transit centre and the Perris Valley Line, both of which cleared significant hurdles in 2009.
Also, readers should know: Greyhound has NOT left Riverside. The new signage on the Greyhound building downtown, marking it as a police station (which it is), does not mean that service to the station has ceased. The station is open 7am-3:30pm and 6pm-9pm daily.
I'd like to wish all my readers a happy and prosperous new year, and I hope for a better transit system in 2010.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Metrolink Proposes Slashing Pretty Much Everything
Metrolink has apparently been in pretty dire financial straits- the drop in oil prices and the continued increase in fares has led many to conclude that driving is a better choice for their commute. (It still isn't, but they're *just* thinking about gas prices.) The decline in ridership means a decline in fare revenue, and the spiral continues.
Anyway, the board recently proposed another 6% fare increase, which would be the second this year alone. After angry protests from the ridership, they postponed action on the matter- and came back with this. The board has proposed cuts to over 50 trains, most of them of the preciously rare off-peak, reverse-peak and weekend variety. Here in the IE, the most major cut would be the suspension of ALL Inland Empire-Orange County Line service on Saturday and Sunday. This would mean that the only trains to serve Riverside on weekends would be the random San Bernardino Line trains that extend south one stop to Downtown. There are two of these in each direction on Saturday and Sunday, and they are peak-direction only- into LA in the morning, out of LA at night. There would be no service in Corona or at Riverside-La Sierra. Also, if you think you can just take the 149 through the canyon and pick up the Orange County Line? Yeah, that's being cut too. All weekend service on the OC line will also be suspended. Essentially, if you're car-free in the IE, you're staying out here for the weekend.
My constant critique on this blog of Metrolink's service and value in connecting this region is its rush-hour peak-direction focus. Metrolink offers quick, reliable, safe service all over its service area, but it offers very little of that if you're not working a regular, 9-5 job. The car-free people of Southern California are very much in need of a way to get around our freeway-centric region that's faster than local buses, and Metrolink often falls short of doing that. Budget crises are understandable, but Metrolink's Board needs to get beyond the paradigm of "cut service or raise fares" for funding troubles. There has to be another way.
Incidentally, I hope that all of you will write to the Metrolink Board and tell them that a 6% fare hike is better than losing all of our weekend train service. In the short-term, if that's what the Board feels they have to do, it's better than these draconian service reductions. In the long term, however, Metrolink needs to find more sustainable sources of funding, and the Board should be expected to approve this fare hike with the understanding that it ought to be the last one for a long while. (For my idea for Metrolink funding, see here.)
Anyway, the board recently proposed another 6% fare increase, which would be the second this year alone. After angry protests from the ridership, they postponed action on the matter- and came back with this. The board has proposed cuts to over 50 trains, most of them of the preciously rare off-peak, reverse-peak and weekend variety. Here in the IE, the most major cut would be the suspension of ALL Inland Empire-Orange County Line service on Saturday and Sunday. This would mean that the only trains to serve Riverside on weekends would be the random San Bernardino Line trains that extend south one stop to Downtown. There are two of these in each direction on Saturday and Sunday, and they are peak-direction only- into LA in the morning, out of LA at night. There would be no service in Corona or at Riverside-La Sierra. Also, if you think you can just take the 149 through the canyon and pick up the Orange County Line? Yeah, that's being cut too. All weekend service on the OC line will also be suspended. Essentially, if you're car-free in the IE, you're staying out here for the weekend.
My constant critique on this blog of Metrolink's service and value in connecting this region is its rush-hour peak-direction focus. Metrolink offers quick, reliable, safe service all over its service area, but it offers very little of that if you're not working a regular, 9-5 job. The car-free people of Southern California are very much in need of a way to get around our freeway-centric region that's faster than local buses, and Metrolink often falls short of doing that. Budget crises are understandable, but Metrolink's Board needs to get beyond the paradigm of "cut service or raise fares" for funding troubles. There has to be another way.
Incidentally, I hope that all of you will write to the Metrolink Board and tell them that a 6% fare hike is better than losing all of our weekend train service. In the short-term, if that's what the Board feels they have to do, it's better than these draconian service reductions. In the long term, however, Metrolink needs to find more sustainable sources of funding, and the Board should be expected to approve this fare hike with the understanding that it ought to be the last one for a long while. (For my idea for Metrolink funding, see here.)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Fare Hike In Omni-Land
This is what happens when you don't ride a transit system that often... you don't notice the fare hikes. I'm not a frequent Omni rider, so I didn't notice that yesterday fares went up to $1.50. Welcome, Omnitrans, to the brave new world of budget cuts.
While it's always a disappointment when fares increase, I should point out that Omni fares are still below RTA's. The cash and day pass fares are the same, but their 7-day pass is $15, compared to ours at $16, and their 31-day pass is $47- a full $3 cheaper, and a day longer.
On the other hand, Omni has yet to develop any U-Pass-style agreements with San Bernardino Valley institutions of higher learning. College students ARE eligible for Student fares, but let's be honest- free bus passes beat discounted ones any day.
This fare change also brings with it several minor schedule changes. Be sure to pick up your new Omnitrans bus book and note the time changes for routes 3, 5, 11, 15, 20, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 81 and 83. It's sad these days that any bus book that comes out without draconian service cuts is a victory... but it's true, and by that measure this book is a victory.
While it's always a disappointment when fares increase, I should point out that Omni fares are still below RTA's. The cash and day pass fares are the same, but their 7-day pass is $15, compared to ours at $16, and their 31-day pass is $47- a full $3 cheaper, and a day longer.
On the other hand, Omni has yet to develop any U-Pass-style agreements with San Bernardino Valley institutions of higher learning. College students ARE eligible for Student fares, but let's be honest- free bus passes beat discounted ones any day.
This fare change also brings with it several minor schedule changes. Be sure to pick up your new Omnitrans bus book and note the time changes for routes 3, 5, 11, 15, 20, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 81 and 83. It's sad these days that any bus book that comes out without draconian service cuts is a victory... but it's true, and by that measure this book is a victory.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Free Omni pass now, fare hike later
A couple of Omni-related news items. First, Omnitrans is holding a shindig at Ontario Mills for "Dump the Pump day", June the 18th. I doubt any of us Riversiders are going in that direction (but if you are, stop by- the 204 express serves the Mills), but I bring it up because Omni has posted a coupon for a free day pass, good only for June 18th. If you happen to be heading into their service territory, print this out and enjoy a free ride.
Second, Omni looks like they'll be following RTA's lead and hiking fares. The current $1.35 general fare will increase to the same level as RTA's new June of Doom fare of $1.50. On the bright side, taking a bus most places in the IE will now cost the same flat rate. (Pass Transit is a bargain at $0.75, and the Corona Cruiser will run you $1.25.)
Second, Omni looks like they'll be following RTA's lead and hiking fares. The current $1.35 general fare will increase to the same level as RTA's new June of Doom fare of $1.50. On the bright side, taking a bus most places in the IE will now cost the same flat rate. (Pass Transit is a bargain at $0.75, and the Corona Cruiser will run you $1.25.)
Friday, April 24, 2009
A Fare Shake
As promised, a line-by-line analysis of the new RTA fares. I'm mostly pleased with the outcome of this change. The few exceptions are noted below.
Cash Fares:
General was $1.25, now $1.50
Senior/Disabled was $0.65, now $0.75
Child fares hold at $0.25 each.
These increases were expected, and the RTA seems to have taken the "one big increase" option here. With any luck, this will provide the needed cash influx to stave off service cuts better than the alternative 5%-a-year increase. These prices are in line with the proposed changes that I highlighted back in January, and I still find them prudent.
Day Passes:
General was $3.75, now $4.00
Senior/Disabled was $1.85, now $2.00
Huzzah! Here there be victory! The RTA has changed its policy on exorbitant Day Pass fares, and the cost of the new Day Passes has actually decreased in terms of multiples of base fare. This was my primary objection to January's proposed fare structure, and it seems RTA listened.
7-Day Pass:
Was $12, now $16.00
Well, you win some, you lose some. While still a value compared to 7 day passes, the 7 Day increased by a little over 1 multiple of the base fare. Also, it won't be sold onboard, which limits access to the transit system for what seems to be no reason at all. If anyone at RTA wants to comment on the decision to discontinue onboard sales, let me know.
31-Day Pass:
Was 31 days, now 30
General: was $43, now $50
Senior: was $21, now $23
Youth: was $32, now $35
So, the 30-31 day thing seems petty, but really it's like the job furloughs we're seeing all over. A tiny inconvenience for a lot of people means we avoid a big inconvenience for more. 12 monthly passes now puts you 5 days shy of a year, where it used to put you 7 days over. Not the end of the world. Moreover, every pass is cheaper by at least one multiple of base fare, with the Senior/Disabled pass being an impressive 4.33 multiples cheaper. This is a reasonable response to inflation, and better yet, it takes into account the limited budgets of sensitive riders (seniors, the disabled, and youth).
Cut: 10-Tripper and Annual Pass
As far as the Annual Pass goes, I think this was a failed RTA experiment. I'm betting that not enough riders committed to buying their transportation in 365-day blocks to make it worth their while to offer such a pass. While it was an interesting idea, I don't think that there's anyone being directly hurt by the dropping of the annual pass. If you can afford to drop $450 on a bus pass all at once, you probably don't need the discount provided by the pass. That said, if anyone out there in readerland CAN afford to drop $450 on the annual pass, if you can buy it and validate it before June 28th you can avoid the fare increase for another full year. (K-12 students, it's $375 and seniors and disabled, it's $220.)
The 10 Tripper is being cut, which I think is a mistake. It provided the ease of a bus pass with the commitment of cash fare, and I think it ought to be continued to encourage new riders. I also think it ought to be sold on board. However, if the RTA really didn't see the use out of it, I don't think it's the worst loss we could have suffered.
Suddenly More Expensive: Commuterlink
I don't like it, nor does anyone who rides Commuterlink on a pass. However, the RTA was the only operator in the area to operate an extensive express bus system and then not charge more for it. The last fare increase we saw was the CommuterLink cash fare, and now the pass fare is going up. (Personally, I'm a U-Pass rider, so I get out of it anyway. :D) On the upside, there is now a monthly pass option for those riders who use the 149-Orange County often. Up until now, you'd have to carry an inconvenient $1.65 (exact change!) each way to go along with your pass.
I would urge RTA, in making this move, to ensure that local passes are worth credit towards the express fare. Local riders should swipe their passes and pay $1.50 to ride occasionally. Furthermore, RTA needs to ensure that transfer agreements are in place with all of the systems that CommuterLink comes into contact with (for you planning guys, I'll make it easy: Omnitrans, Foothill, OCTA, NCTD Sprinter & Breeze, NCTD Coaster, Pass Transit, Corona Cruiser and Metrolink)
I'll go ahead and post an analysis of the actual fare changes, for comparison with the one I did of the proposed changes in January.
Cash Fares:
General was $1.25, now $1.50
Senior/Disabled was $0.65, now $0.75
Child fares hold at $0.25 each.
These increases were expected, and the RTA seems to have taken the "one big increase" option here. With any luck, this will provide the needed cash influx to stave off service cuts better than the alternative 5%-a-year increase. These prices are in line with the proposed changes that I highlighted back in January, and I still find them prudent.
Day Passes:
General was $3.75, now $4.00
Senior/Disabled was $1.85, now $2.00
Huzzah! Here there be victory! The RTA has changed its policy on exorbitant Day Pass fares, and the cost of the new Day Passes has actually decreased in terms of multiples of base fare. This was my primary objection to January's proposed fare structure, and it seems RTA listened.
7-Day Pass:
Was $12, now $16.00
Well, you win some, you lose some. While still a value compared to 7 day passes, the 7 Day increased by a little over 1 multiple of the base fare. Also, it won't be sold onboard, which limits access to the transit system for what seems to be no reason at all. If anyone at RTA wants to comment on the decision to discontinue onboard sales, let me know.
31-Day Pass:
Was 31 days, now 30
General: was $43, now $50
Senior: was $21, now $23
Youth: was $32, now $35
So, the 30-31 day thing seems petty, but really it's like the job furloughs we're seeing all over. A tiny inconvenience for a lot of people means we avoid a big inconvenience for more. 12 monthly passes now puts you 5 days shy of a year, where it used to put you 7 days over. Not the end of the world. Moreover, every pass is cheaper by at least one multiple of base fare, with the Senior/Disabled pass being an impressive 4.33 multiples cheaper. This is a reasonable response to inflation, and better yet, it takes into account the limited budgets of sensitive riders (seniors, the disabled, and youth).
Cut: 10-Tripper and Annual Pass
As far as the Annual Pass goes, I think this was a failed RTA experiment. I'm betting that not enough riders committed to buying their transportation in 365-day blocks to make it worth their while to offer such a pass. While it was an interesting idea, I don't think that there's anyone being directly hurt by the dropping of the annual pass. If you can afford to drop $450 on a bus pass all at once, you probably don't need the discount provided by the pass. That said, if anyone out there in readerland CAN afford to drop $450 on the annual pass, if you can buy it and validate it before June 28th you can avoid the fare increase for another full year. (K-12 students, it's $375 and seniors and disabled, it's $220.)
The 10 Tripper is being cut, which I think is a mistake. It provided the ease of a bus pass with the commitment of cash fare, and I think it ought to be continued to encourage new riders. I also think it ought to be sold on board. However, if the RTA really didn't see the use out of it, I don't think it's the worst loss we could have suffered.
Suddenly More Expensive: Commuterlink
I don't like it, nor does anyone who rides Commuterlink on a pass. However, the RTA was the only operator in the area to operate an extensive express bus system and then not charge more for it. The last fare increase we saw was the CommuterLink cash fare, and now the pass fare is going up. (Personally, I'm a U-Pass rider, so I get out of it anyway. :D) On the upside, there is now a monthly pass option for those riders who use the 149-Orange County often. Up until now, you'd have to carry an inconvenient $1.65 (exact change!) each way to go along with your pass.
I would urge RTA, in making this move, to ensure that local passes are worth credit towards the express fare. Local riders should swipe their passes and pay $1.50 to ride occasionally. Furthermore, RTA needs to ensure that transfer agreements are in place with all of the systems that CommuterLink comes into contact with (for you planning guys, I'll make it easy: Omnitrans, Foothill, OCTA, NCTD Sprinter & Breeze, NCTD Coaster, Pass Transit, Corona Cruiser and Metrolink)
I'll go ahead and post an analysis of the actual fare changes, for comparison with the one I did of the proposed changes in January.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fare Increase is UnFare
You'll pardon the pun, but the RTA has released a new proposal for the upcoming fare increase. They have settled on a single fare structure, and the question they have put forward is: should the fares increase 5% a year over the next 5 years, or 25% this year and then be held constant?
My opinion: 25% now, because we need the funding. However, that won't stop me from poking out some inequalities in the structure they chose. Far from being a simple, proportional 25% increase across the board, the new fare structure raises the cost of passes. I have provided a detailed analysis of the increases here, so you can follow along at home.
Column B is the fares, as they stand now. C is the proposed fare structure. D and E are the prices of each pass, represented in terms of multiples of the base fare. (Senior/Disabled passes are represented as multiples of the Senior/Disabled cash fare, while Youth passes are represented as multiples of the General fare.) F is the increase between the two, still in multiples of base fare.
Did you catch that?
Even when taking into account the base fare increase, from $1.25 to $1.50, the price of the passes go up even more. The most obvious example of this is in the proposed $4.95 day pass. At $3.75, a day pass is equal to the cost of riding three buses. You don't save any money unless you ride more than three buses in a day, but you don't lose any money if you ride exactly three. At $4.95, a day pass costs slightly more than riding three buses in a day. You still save money if you ride four, but you don't break even if you ride three anymore. (Not to mention... $4.95? Who carries four singles, three quarters, and two dimes with them? If you're going to screw us, at least make it a fiver even.)
Take a look, now, at the 10 Tripper pass. Under the current system, it costs 8.8 rides. This means you get 1.2 rides free, as a discount for buying in bulk. This is a GREAT option for occasional riders, who get the convenience and savings of a bus pass without the commitment. But look at the new fare system- a 10 Tripper costs... 10 rides. No more discount. Yeah, it's still nice to have the card rather than having to worry about exact change, but now it's just not nearly as attractive, and I think that's sad. Take away the discount, and it's really no better than cash.
Every other pass now breaks even at a higher point than they used to, but this effect is felt the hardest among the occasional riders- the Day pass and 10 Tripper. Take a look over at column G. This is the number of additional rides required per workday to break even, assuming a 5-day workweek, a 22-day work month, and 12 22-day work months a year, less 10 vacation days. For most of the passes, this is trivial, but for the passes I mentioned, this is a big increase.
RTA, you have managed to take the least loyal of your riders, and give them another reason not to ride the bus. Bravo.
RTA Board Meeting, 2 pm, Thursday. If you're as angry as I am, you'll be there.
My opinion: 25% now, because we need the funding. However, that won't stop me from poking out some inequalities in the structure they chose. Far from being a simple, proportional 25% increase across the board, the new fare structure raises the cost of passes. I have provided a detailed analysis of the increases here, so you can follow along at home.
Column B is the fares, as they stand now. C is the proposed fare structure. D and E are the prices of each pass, represented in terms of multiples of the base fare. (Senior/Disabled passes are represented as multiples of the Senior/Disabled cash fare, while Youth passes are represented as multiples of the General fare.) F is the increase between the two, still in multiples of base fare.
Did you catch that?
Even when taking into account the base fare increase, from $1.25 to $1.50, the price of the passes go up even more. The most obvious example of this is in the proposed $4.95 day pass. At $3.75, a day pass is equal to the cost of riding three buses. You don't save any money unless you ride more than three buses in a day, but you don't lose any money if you ride exactly three. At $4.95, a day pass costs slightly more than riding three buses in a day. You still save money if you ride four, but you don't break even if you ride three anymore. (Not to mention... $4.95? Who carries four singles, three quarters, and two dimes with them? If you're going to screw us, at least make it a fiver even.)
Take a look, now, at the 10 Tripper pass. Under the current system, it costs 8.8 rides. This means you get 1.2 rides free, as a discount for buying in bulk. This is a GREAT option for occasional riders, who get the convenience and savings of a bus pass without the commitment. But look at the new fare system- a 10 Tripper costs... 10 rides. No more discount. Yeah, it's still nice to have the card rather than having to worry about exact change, but now it's just not nearly as attractive, and I think that's sad. Take away the discount, and it's really no better than cash.
Every other pass now breaks even at a higher point than they used to, but this effect is felt the hardest among the occasional riders- the Day pass and 10 Tripper. Take a look over at column G. This is the number of additional rides required per workday to break even, assuming a 5-day workweek, a 22-day work month, and 12 22-day work months a year, less 10 vacation days. For most of the passes, this is trivial, but for the passes I mentioned, this is a big increase.
RTA, you have managed to take the least loyal of your riders, and give them another reason not to ride the bus. Bravo.
RTA Board Meeting, 2 pm, Thursday. If you're as angry as I am, you'll be there.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Interesting night...
Well, I got back from the RTA's "public hearing" on the proposed fare hike about an hour ago, and I'll talk about that in a minute, but first let's talk about how I got there.
First off- the way the routes are set up in my area, getting from my house to RTA headquarters moves perpendicular to most travel patterns, and either involves changing buses a few miles away downtown or walking two blocks over from a bus stop. Considering I have a foldable scooter, I chose the latter. So I got on the #51 Crest Cruiser and rode it 'round to Iowa and Blaine, where the bus book clearly indicates (with one of those little "T" symbols) a transfer between the 10, 14, and the aforementioned 51. Pull the stop cord... Sign lights up... bell goes "ding!"... driver speeds right past the stop. Tells me that they don't stop there, per her supervisor/contracting company, and that her next stop is at Massachusets. (That's a LONG block away. Probably two and change standard city blocks.) She's nice about the whole thing, but I'm still a ways away from where I want to be, watching the #10 roll away without me on it. Ah well... it happens. So I scooter on down Blaine to RTA headquarters.
Get to RTA... it's deserted. I'm about a half hour early, so I expect that. What I didn't expect was that it would stay that deserted throughout the entire public comment period. (1800h-1900h)
That's right. I was the only person to show up in all of Riverside. 250,000 people, thousands of boardings a day in this city alone, flyers littering every bus... and where were you, Riverside?
Anyway, so I essentially had a personal audience with the agency's CFO and Director of Marketing. Nice guys, very friendly. I get the feeling that a lot of their meetings are either as empty as tonight, or worse. They also articulated a strong case, from the agency's perspective, for their fare increase. Matching my points from the earlier post point-for-point:
And then, as an interesting anecdote to end the night, I scootered back over to University to catch the #16 home, got to the bus stop and was greeted by the sight of five RPD's and two RFD's at the stop. Don't know what happened, didn't ask, don't care... but you see such an interesting side of the city riding the bus, don't you? (Please note that this shouldn't be an indictment of public transport safety... there were like 10 cops there, dealing with one angry woman. Probably was the safest place on University Avenue at that moment. It still made me chuckle.)
First off- the way the routes are set up in my area, getting from my house to RTA headquarters moves perpendicular to most travel patterns, and either involves changing buses a few miles away downtown or walking two blocks over from a bus stop. Considering I have a foldable scooter, I chose the latter. So I got on the #51 Crest Cruiser and rode it 'round to Iowa and Blaine, where the bus book clearly indicates (with one of those little "T" symbols) a transfer between the 10, 14, and the aforementioned 51. Pull the stop cord... Sign lights up... bell goes "ding!"... driver speeds right past the stop. Tells me that they don't stop there, per her supervisor/contracting company, and that her next stop is at Massachusets. (That's a LONG block away. Probably two and change standard city blocks.) She's nice about the whole thing, but I'm still a ways away from where I want to be, watching the #10 roll away without me on it. Ah well... it happens. So I scooter on down Blaine to RTA headquarters.
Get to RTA... it's deserted. I'm about a half hour early, so I expect that. What I didn't expect was that it would stay that deserted throughout the entire public comment period. (1800h-1900h)
That's right. I was the only person to show up in all of Riverside. 250,000 people, thousands of boardings a day in this city alone, flyers littering every bus... and where were you, Riverside?
Anyway, so I essentially had a personal audience with the agency's CFO and Director of Marketing. Nice guys, very friendly. I get the feeling that a lot of their meetings are either as empty as tonight, or worse. They also articulated a strong case, from the agency's perspective, for their fare increase. Matching my points from the earlier post point-for-point:
- RTA's already more expensive than other major operators: The agency says that pretty much every other operator is implementing a fare increase as well, as they're all in essentially the same boat. Furthermore, RTA, unlike most other major SoCal operators, has a large rural footprint that is more expensive to maintain than urban/suburban service.
- Ridership increases should have driven revenue growth: They have... but not enough, and possibly not reliably. A lot of the new riders have been riding under programs like CityPass or UPass, which provide significantly less revenue to the agency. Furthermore, new riders are fickle- growth like this is unprecedented, and so can't be reliably factored in to projections. If the bottom falls out of ridership and there's no money for fuel, life at a bus company starts to get real bad, real quick.
- Service hasn't improved: According to the Agency, yes it has. It's just harder to notice. Because of traffic patterns, more buses have to be added to even maintain the current schedule hours. This may not translate into visible service extensions, but it does translate into more costs in the form of wages, pensions, healthcare, and fuel. Furthermore, I was assured that late-night and reverse commute service may be on the way soon, as part of some new federal pilot program grants.
- Why aren't there ads on buses?: Because the Board hasn't approved them, but keep watching the meetings. They might. The program that I earlier reported was rejected has, after all, not been rejected. (Sorry!) They're just taking a long while with bids. We should see some movement on the issue in December or January. Hopefully it'll be movement towards ads... but at least some movement is movement.
- Where's my BRT?: The Agency said that BRT's in the plan, and they'll implement it the moment they can find funding for it. Let's hope they find it soon.
- What about sales taxes/state/federal money?: Basically, I got two impressions here. One, that they'll take all the state and federal money the can get, but it's just not rolling in. Two, Riverside County's Measure A sales tax is a pittance compared to other regions' similar taxes, and it's not RTA's decision where it goes, but RCTC's. Coming soon on RiR- going to the RCTC public meetings and asking them why Malfunction Junction gets billions while RapidLink gets buried. Stay tuned.
And then, as an interesting anecdote to end the night, I scootered back over to University to catch the #16 home, got to the bus stop and was greeted by the sight of five RPD's and two RFD's at the stop. Don't know what happened, didn't ask, don't care... but you see such an interesting side of the city riding the bus, don't you? (Please note that this shouldn't be an indictment of public transport safety... there were like 10 cops there, dealing with one angry woman. Probably was the safest place on University Avenue at that moment. It still made me chuckle.)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Fare increase
(Please note- RTA responses to these concerns are printed above, in the post entitled "Interesting Night". My opinions have changed slightly- It's okay. I'm a liberal. I can do that. :) )
So the RTA is asking for a fare increase. Again. It seems they just can't increase service without raising prices. Can't let us transit riders get something for nothing. RTA's fares are, as they stand today, higher than Foothill Transit, and on par with Metro and OCTA, even though the agency offers less service than either of the above. Only Omnitrans, out of the major local bus operators, has higher fares. And even Omnitrans manages to run buses late into the evening. Experienced local transit riders will know well the experience of taking the Omni (ex-90) 215 into Riverside, only to have to call for a ride or a cab because RTA's routes had shut down.
Worst of all, this new fare increase is slated to take away the only generous bit of the fare structure we had. CommuterLink Express routes, which used to be covered under the usual 1, 7 and 31 Day passes, are going to require a new, more expensive Express pass. No word on how this will effect UCR, RCC and CityPass riders.
And the Board isn't really ASKING for a fare increase. In their flyer for public hearings, they don't ask us whether or not a fare increase is appropriate. They just ask whether we'd like Option A or Option B. (To save you the time- A has lower CommuterLink fares but higher local fares, and B is vice-versa. The difference is about $2/month either way.)
Yet there has really been no improvement on the part of the agency to warrant the fare increase. Sure, the rerouting around UCR has been fantastic for me personally, but system-wide they've actually reduced service, including service cuts that will take effect in January. This time they can't use the excuse of "high fuel prices"- fuel prices have fallen precipitously since the beginning of the year. They're still not considering bus advertising, which is standard practice throughout the country and raises Omnitrans $750,000 per year. (The proposal talked about in the article was rejected by the Board.) And they STILL haven't said a thing about RapidLink, the much-praised Bus Rapid Transit project slated to go online in 2005 until it abruptly disappeared.
Unlike Los Angeles County, where voters just approved a half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation, here in Riverside the RCTC is just going to squeeze bus riders for even more while providing even less service.
So the RTA is asking for a fare increase. Again. It seems they just can't increase service without raising prices. Can't let us transit riders get something for nothing. RTA's fares are, as they stand today, higher than Foothill Transit, and on par with Metro and OCTA, even though the agency offers less service than either of the above. Only Omnitrans, out of the major local bus operators, has higher fares. And even Omnitrans manages to run buses late into the evening. Experienced local transit riders will know well the experience of taking the Omni (ex-90) 215 into Riverside, only to have to call for a ride or a cab because RTA's routes had shut down.
Worst of all, this new fare increase is slated to take away the only generous bit of the fare structure we had. CommuterLink Express routes, which used to be covered under the usual 1, 7 and 31 Day passes, are going to require a new, more expensive Express pass. No word on how this will effect UCR, RCC and CityPass riders.
And the Board isn't really ASKING for a fare increase. In their flyer for public hearings, they don't ask us whether or not a fare increase is appropriate. They just ask whether we'd like Option A or Option B. (To save you the time- A has lower CommuterLink fares but higher local fares, and B is vice-versa. The difference is about $2/month either way.)
Yet there has really been no improvement on the part of the agency to warrant the fare increase. Sure, the rerouting around UCR has been fantastic for me personally, but system-wide they've actually reduced service, including service cuts that will take effect in January. This time they can't use the excuse of "high fuel prices"- fuel prices have fallen precipitously since the beginning of the year. They're still not considering bus advertising, which is standard practice throughout the country and raises Omnitrans $750,000 per year. (The proposal talked about in the article was rejected by the Board.) And they STILL haven't said a thing about RapidLink, the much-praised Bus Rapid Transit project slated to go online in 2005 until it abruptly disappeared.
Unlike Los Angeles County, where voters just approved a half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation, here in Riverside the RCTC is just going to squeeze bus riders for even more while providing even less service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
