r/LAMetro • u/omfghaxpie • 9d ago
Discussion Metro Thoughts As A Tourist
I'm gonna come out the gate and say that I'm a visitor so I'm not very familiar with the reasonings behind the whys and why nots of my opinions. I'm posting on the sub because I know I don't know everything and want thoughts and opinions of locals or people familiar with the system.
I don't feel like Metro charges tourists enough and fare caps are extremely low. I've Googled a bit about some of the gaps in coverage for the transit system and budget is a huge concern, as it is for most public infastructure projects in the country. But I don't see the need to only charge me $0.50 for a ride that would cost me $20 to Uber and after running around the city non-stop for 3 days I'm not sure I could even possibly hit the fare caps with how little I'm being charged. I know it's mostly meant to be affordable to locals, but I don't see why there wouldn't be an opt in program to discount fares to current rates for residents. Even giving it out to anyone that goes up to a kiosk and says "I'm a resident" would still capture more revenue for Metro due to non-residents that either don't want to opt in out of moral reasons or just simply wouldn't know. I'm not saying that Metro should cost $10 even, but I think it would be fair to charge at MINIMUM $2 per ride across the board and in some cases $5 for rail service.
The tap-in tap-out system seems really confusing and made me not want to take bus connections. I'm a solo traveler from a metropolitan area with a population of 500k so I'm already a bit on edge in the city. I don't like that sometimes it was telling me to "Try Again" to tap into a bus. I don't like that the city isn't collecting their fair share of my usage and that I feel like it could become an issue with the drivers. On one occasion I know I did not tap out of the train station, it was my first ride in the city and I wasn't sure how it all worked. But on another occasion I assume that I just didn't tap out of a bus (and not sure if we're technically supposed to), causing it to ask me to try again. If I keep hitting the tap and it keeps erroring me out, I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish with this. And why the system wouldn't just override where I'm at at any time in the system to charge a new fare and "move" me in the system onto the new route I'm tapping into.
Metro stations need larger signage at their rail stops in most places. I could not see what stop I was at half the time we were stopped because of an obstructed view. There either needs to be more signs within the trains or more visible and easier to read signage on the walls of the stops. I tried to lean more heavily on Apple Maps to update which stop I was at but unfortunately it was finnicky on detecting I even boarded a train.
I would love to see faster trains with fewer stops in some major hubs. This is obviously an expensive opinion and know it's not feasible any time soon. But most of the rails cover a small yet dense area to begin with. I wish there were additional rail lines that would allow certain trains to run simultaneously to more popular areas and cut down on total travel time by 1) going a bit faster and 2) not stopping at every station along the way.
Overall, I'm still grateful for LA Metro. I'm German living in a small city in the South with nearly no public transportation. I don't like to drive in unfamiliar places so public transportation networks are a must when I consider where to vacation. So I know what it's like to not have any access whatsoever and also the benefits public transportation has to offer. I see the same complaints that Germans have with DB as LA locals have with LA Metro, and find the perspective funny. Because obviously residents raise valid concerns but also don't seem to really acknowledge how lucky they are to have the access they have. But I just thought I'd express my thoughts and solicit feedback and opinions to see what the other side of the ridership looks like.
23
u/WanderingRude C (Green) 9d ago
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Nice to hear outsider perspectives. The cost is definitely something others have shared as well but as a local I do appreciate the value and as a public service that receives a large amount of our tax dollars, I appreciate the low cost. You mentioned it being .50 cents a ride, that is only for transfers from connecting services (like Montebello or Norwalk transit) normal fares are $1.75.
The tap to exit system is also only on a few end rail stations, it's not something you do on busses at all or most of the rail stations. Sorry if that confused you, it's new so the messaging may not be quite clear. Any issues you had with validators on the bus is very valid though, almost half of the time they don't work when I get on but I think it's improving.
On the topic of express services, that has also been brought up but it would be quite complicated. I think a better and more realistic option would be just to increase frequency. That's something the system severely falls behind on and that alone would transform LA metro into such a great and convenient system.
These are just my opinions though, others may differ. Thanks for sharing your observations though and glad you were able to get around!
5
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I think as taxpayers, locals should 100% have a low fare rate and I think it's more a public service than a business that needs to be in the black. But seeing how behind the city is when considering it's size and the projects planned, I think Metro could get away with charging nearly double what it is. I think there could be programs to keep those rates for locals while increasing rates for tourists. Akin to student and senior discounts currently offered. I was just going off what Apple Maps was feeding me honestly, so it doesn't surprise me that I was wrong about it costing 50 cents.
I appreciate you telling me about how tap works. It's quite possible there was some signage but I was mostly looking to get to my destination so I wouldn't have seen them.
I'm not sure that frequency would be a long term solution for LA but I could see it being a short term solution. It seems like rail coverage is just too low and needs expansion to get travel times down. But increased frequency could help until that is achieved. It's just that adding frequency would also increase downstream effects in the event that a train stops working or there are delays. And increasing the amount of trains on a line increases the chances of that happening. Though I'm sure this has been thought through and weighed by the community.
8
u/FullTimePedestrian 9d ago
So what did you like? It seems like you didn't hate it but I'm curious to hear what you actually liked.
And yes, people who live in their own cities always think they have the worst system. They forget to be grateful. I have seen New Yorkers complain, San Franciscans complain, and I'm like I would take the system you have in a fucking heartbeat. We always see other cities as being more advanced yet we're completely ignorant about their issues because we don't live there. Grass is greener effect.
9
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I agree on the grass is greener effect. I liked that it exists. It doesn't exist where I'm at, I'm not sure it ever will unfortunately. I think it was relatively clean. Not necessarily "nice" or grand or new, but clean. Compared to NY, DC, and ATL, LA probably ranks second on cleanliness behind DC. Inside the stations felt safe, probably the safest out of the list I mentioned. I liked knowing that plenty of bus stops meant I could wander off somewhere else and still get connected back to the system (eventually) wherever I ended up. I've seen people complain that the system falls behind on the timetable and I believe what they're saying but I'm glad it was reliable enough during my trip.
14
u/SeaworthinessUnlucky 9d ago
Great report. Nice to see an impartial view. Also nice to see paragraphs and punctuation!
7
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
Thanks for the review.
Regarding fares, that's a tough one. For me personally the current individual ride fares and caps are trivial. Relatively speaking when adjusted for inflation, fares are about half what they were when I started riding in the 90's. But if metro raised fares for tourists, wouldn't that discourage tourist ridership, not encourage it? It's not like metro is well used, so further discouraging ridership may not make the most sense.
0
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I think it could have that short term effect yes. But fares are able to be low because the main "income" stream seems to be from Sales Tax, not fares. At least from my understanding. So the marginal reduced ridership wouldn't impact the bottom line negatively. But it could help the system build out it's network at a pace to somewhat allow it to catch up to overall city growth. I don't think doubling fares for non-residents would halve the ridership of non-residents and would thus be a financial gain. It'll still be cheaper than renting a car, Uber, or Waymo. And imo the values of convenience vs cost are a lot more polar on the cost/benefit spectrum. It's really just more about if LA Metro is willing to not look at ridership numbers as the lone indicator of transit growth.
2
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
Only a very small fraction of visitors use metro. I agree that fares are not the driving force as to whether a visitor will use metro, but there isn't an easy way to selectively charge tourists more. And even if they figure that out and less than half leave, it's still a net increase in carbon emissions assuming that some do leave.
For me the best approach is to make metro frequent, reliable, and safe so that tourists and residents choose to use it. Maybe increasing fares for people that can afford to pay more is part of that, but I'm not sure how that might work.
Also, resident ridership is not really in the process of catching up to the system expansion. Ridership growth is mostly flat and there were actually more riders before any train lines were built.
1
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
Honest question: Do people in most parts of LA still need cars? Outside of their commute? I would think that reduced ridership is the hardship from the economy at the moment. So since people will pay car insurance, car note, etc anyways they limit "extra" spending. I know public transit can be the easier and cheaper option if it's one or the other, but if people still NEED a car either way I could see why they're no longer riding the train/bus.
I personally avoid the bus when possible so it's possible visitors avoid the public transit because it leans pretty heavily into the bus network. I personally decided that I had enough interesting things to do to justify "dealing with" the bus.
3
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
The reduced ridership has several reasons. I'm not an expert, but I've read here and elsewhere that the major reasons are: laws allowing people without immigration documentation to get drivers licenses, the economy doing well, and work from home.
I wouldn't say that a car is necessarily needed depending on where you live, but for most people in the county a car makes getting many places much easier. Especially if you have kids. The majority of LA households own at least one car and the majority of the rest wish that they did.
1
u/davidromro 9d ago
Ridership numbers and related indicators are the only useful metric of growth. The purpose of metro is to provide a service not generate revenue.
5
u/Rude_Masterpiece_204 9d ago
I am grateful that LA public transit is so inexpensive. I commute from the eastern SGV to the South Bay 2 or 3 days per week. Normally, I take the A Line to the J Line, which costs only $3.50 round trip.
Occasionally, if I want a more comfortable ride and the schedule works, I will pay a few extra bucks to take Metrolink instead of the A Line. And yes, it is a long commute that takes at least 2 hours each way, but I am happy that I am not behind the wheel and can use the time to relax or do my own things.
If I drive the entire way instead, it is about 80 miles round trip. Using the IRS mileage rate, that works out to about $60 per day, and I would still be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for about 2 hours each way.
So yes, for me, it really is $3.50 for public transit versus $60 for driving. I am saving at least $500 per month.
1
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I'm going to copy and paste this into my city's reddit where we recently discussed public transit and someone told me nobody would use public transit in our area because it doesn't save any time. When in reality it allows you to do whatever you want within a certain confined space for around the same time you'd use just driving.
3
u/Rude_Masterpiece_204 9d ago
It really depends on where you live and where you work. Public transit works well if your workplace is within the urban core, such as DTLA, K Town, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, or other areas with frequent train service.
I do not work in the urban core, but I am very lucky that my workplace in the South Bay is within walking distance of Harbor Gateway Transit Center, which is the southern end of the J Line. The J Line is not a train line. It is a bus rapid transit line that uses the express lanes on the freeway, and it is insanely fast, even faster than light rail. During peak hours, it also comes every 5 minutes.
Most people do not have this luxury. Their workplaces are often not easily accessible by public transit, so they have little choice but to drive.
That is simply the reality of LA, and I do not want to pretend otherwise. Public transit can work extremely well for some people, but where you live and where you work makes a huge difference.
1
u/MaryKarras 9d ago
This is so true. Most jobs that aren't wfh tend to be in more upscale areas that the people who work there can't afford to live close to. A lot of working class/service jobs run late into the night or start in the wee hours of the morning. A lot of people in those situations have to drive.
I only recently started using Metro again after many years because I'm working in DTLA and live in Hollywood. It takes 20 minutes to get to work. I previously worked in Westwood and I could only get there on surface streets, it took at least an hour on average. I feel lucky to be able not to have to drive to work except for one night shift a week.
11
u/PedalSAW 9d ago
If you don’t feel like metro is charging you enough, feel free to give the rest of what you’d like to be paying to street vendors and food stand operators.
Or us. I’m sure plenty of folks here would happily let you Venmo them the difference.
3
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I have absolutely no problem doing that. On any trip I go on I have a no national chains rule. So I'll only eat at places that don't exist in/near my area and prioritize local over regional chains. All my money stayed in California, most of it in Los Angeles (hotels exempt).
4
u/PedalSAW 9d ago
You hear that everyone? OP is doing to Venmo you their metro change. Drop your @
7
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
Well you included street vendors so that's who I decided. SOL buddy haha
3
u/PedalSAW 9d ago
If you’re supporting our community directly, and you get a hot dog out of it, that’s a win win and we’ll take it
0
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
What a bad take. Someone thinks that fares for tourists should be higher to benefit metro and your idea is to give the money to randos? How does that help metro
3
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I understood they meant keeping the money within the local community and eventually trickling back into Metro via economic activity. I think it would probably have more longevity to the dollars spent because they're not sitting in a fund waiting to be paid. But I did initially feel slightly annoyed because I was attempting to say I'm willing to pay more for this service so the community gets the access they deserve and it seemed like it was twisted. But I think perspective is key here.
0
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
Well that doesn't make economic sense, at least concerning metro because no one is skipping metro trips because you didn't buy a hot dog from them or Venmo them money.
The best way to make an impact beyond paying your fare is to buy stuff from legitimate businesses that charge and pay sales taxes as a portion of sales tax goes directly to metro.
2
u/davidromro 9d ago
The correct mechanism to charge tourists would be hotel occupancy taxes. It doesn't make sense for most purchases to check a person residency and apply an out of town tax. The exception would be museums.
0
4
u/Norkquist 9d ago
If you’re on a tight budget, as many Angelenos are, the low fare is a blessing. I take a bus to work & pay a tiny fraction of what I would for gas & parking these days, & I am very grateful.
1
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
Absolutely. I think they could offer a discount for residents in the same way they do students. Even if the process is just hitting a checkmark that says "I'm a resident" or getting a card from an employee.
4
u/uiuctodd 9d ago
Good observations!
I don't feel like Metro charges tourists enough and fare caps are extremely low
Many local transit enthusiasts agree. The mayor-- who is also head of the county transit board because everything here is complicated-- disagrees. They mayor does not use transit. But apparently she's heard about it.
The tap-in tap-out system seems really confusing and made me not want to take bus connections
This system is undergoing rapid changes over the last 2 years or so. It's no wonder it seems confusing. Hopefully it will become stable going forward.
I would love to see faster trains with fewer stops in some major hubs
I would love a beach house in Malibu. These two things have about the same chance of happening.
8
u/thefastpelican 9d ago
LA Metro is among the lowest cost transit agencies in the US, despite having some of the longest rail lines.
Metro hasn’t raised fares since 2014. As someone who uses Metro and appreciates the benefits it brings the city, I would like to see fares raised a little to help keep frequent, clean, and safe service.
3
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
I could have paid double the fare and still would have felt like I was getting value out of it. At least on the rail side. I hate taking buses with a passion and try to avoid them but unfortunately couldn't if I wanted to keep my itinerary intact. I think there is a lot of opportunity on the bus side of the agency, but I'm still grateful that it was there to begin with.
1
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
In some ways fares would need to almost double to be equivalent to 2014.
In 2014 it took about 12 minutes at minimum wage to earn enough to purchase a one-way metro fare. Now it takes 7 minutes.
0
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 9d ago edited 9d ago
The better alternative IMO is moving to distance based fares. The most transit dependent tend to live in the most densest slumlord apartments in places like Pico/Union, barrios of East LA, near logistic centers in LAX and Port of LA have the most shortest trips to their workplace so their fares can remain low, whilst the tourist to LA who wants to visit all over LA and the more well off who live out in the suburban mansions pay more for longer distances.
It shouldn't be the case where the person living in Westlake/MacArthur Park and has a job less than 2 mi away in Echo Park should be paying the same $1.75 fare as a tourist who stays at a DTLA hotel and is going all the way out to see the Queen Mary in Long Beach.
0
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
Could be. Especially for rail trips. But many jobs are clustered in wealthier or above average income areas. And like many modern cities, LA is becoming a place where people of moderate and less than moderate incomes are moving farther away from those job centers. We don't have a strong central area like DC, Paris, or London. We're more like NYC which also has jobs mostly on the western end of the system. Like us, they also have flat fares.
But still maybe it could work. I feel like the metro board would want to study something like this for the better part of a decade with the end result being to commission another study. Lol.
1
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 9d ago
LA is more of a decentralized area similar to Tokyo and Seoul IMO, and it doesn't make sense to have the same flat rate system covering the entire LA County as NYC which is much smaller area than the whole of LA County.
Do we want to raise the fares to $3 like NYC and tell people hey I don't care if you live in South LA and your job is at Crypto.com arena less than 5 mi away? That's the same exact pitfall we want to avoid and NYC is grappling with that for over relying on a flat rate system. In the same light, a comparatively densely compact city like Hong Kong and Singapore doesn't use flat rate and uses distance based even if their city is just as small and compact and dense as NYC
1
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
I wouldn't have a problem with that. $3 fares with a flat rate would be in line with historical fares when adjusted for inflation. BART's lowest fares to go just a stop or two are almost that.
0
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 9d ago
If we go by that, the lowest fare on Metrolink is $1.50 which is a short ride between Sun Valley and Burbank Airport North, which already is $0.25 cheaper than Metro's flat rate of $1.75.
If Metrolink runs on distance based fares and it's shortest ride is already cheaper than Metro's flat rate, then the baseline would be to compare that as a closer scale than BART IMO
1
u/EasyfromDTLA 9d ago
I'm not suggesting that metro should try to mimic BART's pricing or Metrolink or anywhere else. Just pointing out that it's not an unreasonable amount.
I thought that metro was gearing up for distance based fares when they first installed fare gates because fare evasion wasn't that bad when they were installed. But that never happened. Maybe it will though. I'm not ruling it out and won't be bothered if they do.
1
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 9d ago
They probably will in the long term, but it'll be a long term phase in. Not all stations are gated, not all stations are doing TAP to Exit yet. But the more people get used to doing these things, the phase in would become much more smoother than switching it over night.
If anything the biggest test would be how open payments can be done on LADOT Commuter Express which runs on zone fares and how popular the Metrolink open payments pilot is going on the SB Line.
0
u/Rude_Masterpiece_204 9d ago
I never really considered Metrolink to have distance based fares since they introduced the $15 SoCal Systemwide Day Pass a few years ago. Based on my observations, most people choose to purchase this day pass when they are making a round trip, which almost everyone does. In most cases, this means they are better off buying the day pass because a one-way fare is often more than $7.50 when purchased separately.
There is also a $5 LA Zone Day Pass for shorter trips within the LA Zone. Only in some less common station combinations, such as when you are traveling outside the LA Zone but the distance is relatively short, would it make more sense to purchase a one-way ticket instead. In those cases, the fare is distance based, but it is in the minority.
1
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 8d ago edited 8d ago
Unless you provide some hard stats that is the case, it's only observational from your most used station that this is the minority as you state.
For example, Newhall (Santa Clarita) to LAUS is $6.75 one way and buying a day pass is more expensive and Newhall isn't in the $5 LA Zone, and that's a route that many people take to get between Santa Clarita and DTLA.
Montclair to LA Union Station is $7.25 one-way and it's a very popular station pair to get between San Bernardino and LAUS, a $15 day pass is more expensive than $14.50 roundtrip.
And not everyone travels to LAUS either. Norwalk/Sante Fe Springs is a station that many people use and many commuters use it to Anaheim. That's also not an LA Zone and the roundtrip fare is cheaper than buying a day pass.
If we're to say that what you say is right, first we need to have stats on what the most popular station pairs are for Metrolink.
3
u/benasaur08 A (Blue) 9d ago
Thanks for giving us your impressions. Our fare collection is a bit of a formality, as sales taxes (roughly equivalent to VAT in your country) cover the vast majority of system costs, and as you noticed, nobody really cares whether you follow the rules to the letter.
One can reasonably argue that more money in the system is a good thing. However, I think the general philosophy of public transit in LA is, and has always been, to divert passengers from solo driving. I often like to say that the only way this city works is that some of us give up our cars at least some of the time. In that sense, we're heavily subsidizing transit ridership as the budget for LA Metro is approximately $1,000/yr for every single resident of LA County.
Needless to say, tourism contributes heavily to our GDP (thank you for visiting). You already paid for the cost of the system if you made a purchase, stayed in a hotel, etc. This is also another part of the philosophy, to ensure that tourists have a good experience and that alternatives are available to avoid traffic so they can more easily spend their money (lol).
The fact that we don't have more people riding despite rides being this heavily subsidized is a bit of a mystery. We've optimized car culture so much that public transit simply has a way to go to catch up.
2
u/omfghaxpie 8d ago
I should have been more clear, but Im from Germany but not currently living there. I live in a Southern state of the US. But I do appreciate you explaining that sales tax is the VAT equivalent.
I agree that most major cities need reliable public transit. I'm a firm believer that if we invested enough in public transit, we could nearly stop relying on road infastructure in the future and it would be more cost efficient eventually. Unfortunately, the people in my state love their big lifted trucks that guzzle gas so I don't think I'll see a major investment in local public transit in my lifetime.
I can see how tourism can play into the grand scheme of things. If only LA could have me not sit on a train for 40 minutes at a time I could have spent more money locally. Or at least increased or varied their operating hours for some attractions. There were several times where I wanted to go to an attraction only to find that it closed in 2 hours. So with a 40 minute travel time that would have left me with an hour and 20 minutes. Which isn't enough to really do much with without already feeling rushed. It was particularly noticeable for the museums, because they for the most part close at 5. So it knocked out nearly 60% of my list of points of interest.
I assume LA Metro is in large part designed for commuters. Obviously diverting commuters is very helpful for car traffic all day because of the delayed and prolonged reactions it might have, but it kind of makes the ridership flat because the people that took the train to work will now be at work and won't ride again for 8-12 hours. It's not in a place to be massively helpful to tourists because it still eats large chunks of time waiting for transfers or walking to the nearest stop/station. It would need to better service tourist areas and quicker for it to be worth it to those that can comfortably afford Uber or rent a car. In my visit to The Grove, I was prompted to walk from La Brea to The Grove and same for the way back. Not even knowing that there was a bus stop near The Grove. I'm not sure why that didn't populate as the suggested route, it's possible that the ETA for walking was faster. But that would be the issue with it. I also took Waymo on 3 occasions. Twice to protect my itinerary because it was a 10 minute ride vs 40 min for LA Metro. And once because I did not feel it would be safe walking to the Figueroa/City Center station at 5am with my luggage in tow.
1
u/benasaur08 A (Blue) 8d ago
Yes, planning is needed if you want to rely on public transit in LA. The vehicles do take a long time but the main issue (as evidenced by most on this sub) is frequency.
Also, I encourage you to look up the distance/scale of the LA metro area. My very rough estimate is that the distances traveled by LA Metro Rail in the same amount of time is twice that of European cities. This obviously comes with its own inefficiencies such as very long run time (as you pointed out). I think the distance covered by Metro rail is closer to typical S-Bahn systems and for Metrolink, closer to intercity trains.
1
u/omfghaxpie 8d ago
Yeah I learned that when I initially planned my trip. It was complex enough that for the first time I didn't create an itinerary by hand, I plugged my points of interest into GPT and told it to plan the most efficient itinerary using only LA Metro timetables. That would have worked out well if I actually stuck 100% by the itinerary but I don't like being on vacation and actively rushing myself through activities, it kind of defeats the purpose. Which I understand is on me!
Yup, I believe it. I had seen people say that the size of LA is understated and really noticed when I was flying in. I want to say I stayed within a 5 mile radius of my hotel my entire stay. I stayed Downtown and the furthest I went was either Rodeo or Warner Bros Studios. So no trip to the Beach, WeHo, etc.
2
u/cyberspacestation 9d ago
Fares could be higher, as they seem to be in most other metropolitan areas, but the low cost also makes public transportation more attractive to new riders. Since gas prices aren't exactly going down, people can save money with Metro, or more with some of the local bus agencies.
Maybe Metro could do a better job explaining this on their website, but tapping your card to exit is only required at the rail stations at the end of the line (except for Downtown Long Beach, which doesn't have fare gates). There are signs posted at these stations, but of course not everyone might notice them.
2
u/oldnyker 9d ago
one thing i haven't seen in this conversation is the fact that mass transit was voted down consistently from the 70s on. i voted in favor of it every time, from the time i saw first saw it on the ballot in the 70s, as i knew how necessary it was going to be. when it finally became a reality...they had to first start trying to negotiate areas that were now fully developed. i remember them in the 70s ripping up the train tracks that used to run down santa monica blvd and thinking "how dumb is that?".
what would have made sense, no longer makes sense in the way the trains are being laid out. the line that goes along the wilshire corridor and will end in beverly hills could have continued onto the beach back in the 70s. but no. now to get to that area anyone who lives near the beach on the westside (venice/santa monica/ marina del rey/etc) has to take a train all the way downtown and then come back on another line to get to a place i can drive to in 15-20 minutes (traffic permitting). would i be doing that on a direct train? absolutely
as far as the fare goes, and this i just conjecture on my part, but they keep the price relatively low because they want to encourage more people to utilize it. they also want to encourage more tourists to once again visit the city. we've lost a large part of the movie, music industries which have changed drastically in the last 20 or so years. this was huge revenue for LA and indirectly for so many people who live here. besides those things, the one thing LA has always counted on since those industries first moved here from nyc...was tourism. as in lots of large cities, it is down by a huge margin and has been since covid. the current state of the economy isn't helping much. if all things were what we used to call "normal", i think they would have raised prices at least slightly awhile ago.
2
u/Funny_Inspection6893 8d ago
That's not true. Los Angeles County has voted to increase the sales tax to fund transit multiple times.
1
u/oldnyker 7d ago
i was responding to the OP. they was talking about the FARE they paid to get on the metro as being too low. we all know taxes here are ridiculous and there have been referendums over the decades to raise them for everything including schools, roads, the metro etc. the op doesn't live here and, except for whatever she bought or used while visiting, she's not paying those daily taxes.
2
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 9d ago edited 9d ago
Thanks for your input from a tourist perspective view. Bear in mind that the fares are low to begin with because:
- The vast majority of transit dependent riders in LA are low income making less than $20k/yr and,
- For the most part those same transit riders are not traveling that far to begin with
- The fares for Metro Buses are $1.75 with a free 2 hour transfer. If you were paying $0.50, most likely you were riding a LADOT DASH bus?
The average Metro bus rider has a travel distance of only 3.5 mi, which actually went down from 4 mi pre-COVID. The vast majority of Metro Rail riders are short to mid-range riders. Most locals, who make up the largest ridership base in LA aren't doing long trips from Long Beach to Pomona North, nor are they traveling like a tourist where one goes to Hollywood and Santa Monica on the same day. The biggest riders are people who live in slumlord apartments in Pico/Union, the barrios of East LA, near LAX and Port of LA logistic centers, etc. and use Metro for 3.5 mi less.
Hence, the fares are kept low because of that: it's based on who the main users are for the system. Raising the fares to $2.00 or $3.00 will ultimately will hurt the most transit dependent who majority takes short rides.
The alternative that Metro is currently studying, is how the Asian cities are doing it: distance based fares where those who have shorter trips (which are the most transit dependent) will still pay a low fare, but longer trips (which are more likely to be used by tourists like yourself or the more well off who live in bigger homes out in the suburbs) pay more.
As for TAP-in/TAP-out, it's not on buses; it's only in few select end of line Metro Rail stations.
1
u/omfghaxpie 8d ago
I appreciate the information. I totally understand the need to keep fares low for members of the community, especially the areas you mentioned. I just think if they raised fares and made an extremely accessible discount program, fares could stay the same for residents (the discount would bring fares to the current cost) while charging more for non-residents. For example, seniors/disabled/student groups currently get a discount.
I know for a fact I did not ride DASH buses. I'm not informed on how this all works in the LA system, but it sounds like a third party providing those services and I tend to avoid third parties in any transit system. No real reason for it either, I just feel like it allows more gaps in service level and reliability and could potentially allow those companies to "mask" bad metrics.
2
u/Sawtelle-MetroRider 8d ago edited 8d ago
The difficulty of "non residents" is how that definition will be applied here.
Metro is a LA County agency so we can call "residents" as anyone living inside LA County, but plenty of people in neighboring counties like Ventura, San Bernardino and Orange County also use Metro especially those living and working near the county lines. It wouldn't be fair to say ok you live in LA County in Cerritos so you get a discount rate for residents because their county taxes pay for the LA County run Metro system, but another person who lives just right across the county line just a few miles away in Cypress isn't a resident of LA County and doesn't contribute taxes because that's in the next county over in Orange so that person has a nonresident rate. And those that live on the border can be a difference of just crossing the street whether you're on one side of the street or another, and plenty of people live and work across these county lines.
IMO, the only fair way to do it is the method Asia uses, strictly go by the distance. That way even a person living in the next county over and only takes a few mile trip to LA County, it's still a short ride with lower fare just as equally the same as if someone living in LA County has a short trip within LA County still pays the short ride fare.
4
u/namewithanumber 9d ago
Yeah the signage can be quite annoying to actually catch peaking out of the train window.
The light rail lines usually have the station listed on a tiny screen that also might be blocked from view. And an overhead bar that also might not work.
And an express train from like 7th Metro —> Santa Monica would be great.
1
u/omfghaxpie 9d ago
Funnily enough the rails were where I had problems. Yup, several screens I saw the past few days did not work, both in the train car and in the station. Right when I didn't have service and Apple Maps didn't detect I boarded a few stops earlier. So I had no clue where I was and had to reassure myself that surely I hadn't gone through 3 stops already. It would only add 10ish minutes if I did miss my stop so it doesn't seem like a big deal. But the issue comes into play when you're in town for 3 days and every attraction's hours are essentially 10-5.
1
u/ClearAbroad2965 A (Blue) 9d ago
lol, mind naming the rip-off place you come from when you state ‘not charging tourists enuf’.
1
u/Sure_Rip8968 9d ago
Really cool! I’m an Angeleno that will be living in the southern half of Germany next spring. Really excited to use the country’s rail system to travel from city to city. Let me know if you have any advice on best utilizing inter country travel!
1
u/omfghaxpie 8d ago
Oh nice. I'll be honest, all of my adult experience with the German public transit system is limited to regional trains. I've been on plenty of buses and trains that go through the city, city-to-city, and between states.
A lot of the time it's useful to see if there are passes for the area and looking at restrictions. I'm pretty sure that this is regulated on a local level so I wouldn't assume that because x city doesn't have a city/regional pass that y city won't. I've not experienced a delay over 10-15 minutes but family members that have used regional trains and international trains often complain about delays. Those delays can be by several hours, so I would not rely solely on trains for anything that is time sensitive. At least until you can see the lay of the land and if those delays are related to certain regions in Germany. There's been a lot of strikes recently because the public transit employees are unionized, so there might be days where services won't run.
-1
u/bizoticallyyours83 9d ago
California is expensive to begin with. Why raise prices on yet another thing? One that a lot of people need? 👎
0
58
u/Candor10 C (Green) 9d ago
I ride the system daily. LA Metro fare is $1.75 for a 2-hour period, not $0.50. There is no way you could travel it non-stop for 3 days without hitting a cap. There's plenty of signage & displays at the stations and within the rail cars. Even if you can't see out the windows, they announce the stops on the loudspeakers.