NJ Transit adopts package
with 10-percent fare hike
After holding public hearings throughout the state last week on proposed fare increases, NJ Transit adopted a compromised plan that still allows for an average increase of 10 percent on fares for trains and buses.
Unlike its original proposal, however, the version adopted by the agency’s board of directors Monday requires that public hearings be held before subsequent fare increases are implemented. NJ Transit had sought to raise fares based on inflation over the next five years without holding public hearings.
Two other points of contention brought up at the Jan. 2 public hearings were also addressed in the final version of NJ Transit’s plan. The board scrapped a proposal to eliminate the 25-percent discounts on off-peak round-trip rail tickets on weekdays, and also decided to retain the 55-percent discount on fares for senior citizens and people with disabilities, instead of lowering the discount to 50 percent.
"While many people at last week’s public hearings supported the concept of a fare increase, it was clear to the board of directors and staff that some of the fare policy initiatives needed to be adjusted," said James Weinstein, NJ Transit board chairman and state transportation commissioner, in a statement Monday.
One item that does remain in the adopted plan is an increase in the on-board rail ticket surcharge from $3 to $5.
The fare increases will take effect April 1.
A number of components of NJ Transit’s initial proposal came under heavy fire from commuters at a public hearing at Borough Hall in Freehold on Jan. 2. The public hearing in the county seat of Monmouth County was one of six held throughout the state that evening by NJ Transit administrators.
The areas of complaint included the originally proposed elimination of the weekday rail round-trip excursion fare (available on evening peak and off-peak trains, offering passengers a 25 percent discount on round-trip rail travel).
About 15,000 to 20,000 commuters currently buy round-trip excursion fares weekly, according to NJ Transit officials.
Another complaint revolved around the agency’s proposal to increase fares over each of the next five years without holding further public hearings.
Some members of the public who spoke at the hearing protested the increase of the surcharge for buying tickets on trains rather than at stations, while some objected to the proposed decrease of senior citizen fares from 55 to 50 percent of the regular fare.
According to NJ Transit spokesman Steve Clark, who conducted the Freehold hearing, the average fare increase of 10 percent is needed to help the agency offset a projected $3.1 billion shortfall over the next five years.
NJ Transit officials noted that the corporation has not had a fare hike since 1991.
Among those present at the hearing who voiced the loudest complaints were commuters who said they would be paying increases far exceeding 10 percent.
Nicholas Kazymirczuk, of Freehold Township, said he will be paying an increase of 48.6 percent for a round trip via train from Matawan to New York if the proposed increase was imposed.
"This increase is outrageous," Kazymirczuk said. "These increases should have been made here and there over the years rather than in one big chunk. It will now cost me $18.20 round trip via train between Matawan and New York. It could be cheaper by car when you look at the cost of tolls and parking."
Other speakers claimed the proposed increases would discourage commuters from using public transportation and would probably not increase revenues, but decrease them.
"This will discourage rather than encourage people to use buses and trains," said Clare Ward of Shrewsbury. "More people will be using their cars and clogging the highways."
Patrick Alwell of Holmdel told the NJ Transit representatives that increasing fares is not the best way to address budget shortages. He said fares could spiral if the annual five-year increases are implemented.
"If you raise the price, the revenues will fall," Alwell said. "The proposal puts in place an inflationary bias. What worries me is that the proposal will give NJ Transit an almost automatic ability to raise fares over the next five years. The increases provide NJ Transit absolutely no incentive to respond to the marketplace."
The increase in the surcharge for those who purchase their tickets on board trains is unfair, according to some of the protesters who attended the meeting.
William Armstrong, of Freehold Township, who belongs to the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, said state legislators have not properly funded NJ Transit operations.
"It’s just like your local cable company — free to set rates at any time," Armstrong said.
John Weber of Belmar, who said he represented New Jersey Citizen Action, a watchdog group, said the 10-percent increase figure is misleading. "We’re not talking about a 10-percent increase here," Weber said. "It’s 15 or 24, 25 or even 50 percent as we’ve heard from some folks."
NJ Transit’s plan to streamline its service by combining all one- and two-zone bus fares into a single fare zone, with the new one-way fare in the zone $1.20 and $49 for a monthly pass, was also scrapped by the agency’s board on Monday. Two-zone riders would have seen a decrease in fares from $1.55 and $54 monthly, according to the proposal. One-zone riders would have seen an increase of 20 cents for a one-way trip and $8 for a monthly pass, Clark said
However, those at the Jan. 2 meeting said they were opposed to the increase
"If you want to increase revenues, don’t increase fares," Douglas Dixon, of Brielle, said. "That doesn’t increase ridership. Giving better service does."
– Dick Metzgar and Brian Donahue