N※N

Show Automotive and Transportation Publications

SEPTA & LANTA Fare Debate: Readers Clash Over Transit Costs

Letters to the Editor: Debating the Shift of Public Transit Costs to SEPTA and LANTA Riders

In a series of impassioned letters published in The Morning Call, readers from across the Lehigh Valley and southeastern Pennsylvania weigh in on a contentious proposal to pass more public transit costs directly onto riders of SEPTA and LANTA systems. The discussion stems from ongoing budget shortfalls in Pennsylvania's public transportation networks, exacerbated by rising operational expenses, post-pandemic ridership declines, and debates over state funding allocations. The letters reflect a broader ideological divide: some argue for user-pay models to promote fiscal responsibility, while others defend subsidies as essential for equity, environmental goals, and economic vitality. This compilation of reader opinions highlights the multifaceted challenges facing public transit in the region, touching on themes of affordability, accessibility, and sustainability.

One prominent letter from a Bethlehem resident, Johnathan Kline, a retired accountant, advocates strongly for shifting costs to riders. Kline argues that public transit should operate more like a business, where users bear the brunt of expenses rather than relying on taxpayer subsidies. He points out that SEPTA, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, and LANTA, covering Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, receive significant state and federal funding—amounting to hundreds of millions annually—yet still face deficits. "Why should non-riders, like myself, foot the bill for services we don't use?" Kline writes. He suggests implementing tiered fare structures based on income or usage frequency, potentially increasing base fares from the current $2.50 for SEPTA buses to $4 or more. Kline draws parallels to toll roads, where drivers pay directly for infrastructure, and criticizes what he sees as "inefficient" spending on underused routes. He believes this approach would encourage ridership efficiency, reduce waste, and free up tax dollars for other priorities like education or road repairs. Kline's letter emphasizes personal responsibility, noting that in an era of inflation, subsidizing transit disproportionately burdens working-class taxpayers who commute by car.

Contrasting this view, a letter from Maria Gonzalez, a community organizer in Allentown, passionately defends maintaining or increasing subsidies for LANTA and SEPTA. Gonzalez highlights the social justice implications of fare hikes, arguing that they would disproportionately affect low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on public transit for essential travel. She shares anecdotes from her work with local nonprofits, describing how many residents in the Lehigh Valley depend on LANTA's bus routes to access jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores in areas with limited car ownership. "Passing costs to riders isn't just unfair—it's a barrier to opportunity," Gonzalez asserts. She references data showing that public transit reduces traffic congestion, lowers carbon emissions, and stimulates economic growth by connecting workers to employment hubs. Without adequate funding, she warns, services could be cut, leading to longer wait times and reduced coverage in underserved neighborhoods. Gonzalez calls for progressive funding solutions, such as higher taxes on corporations or a dedicated transit tax on high-income earners, rather than burdening riders. She criticizes proposals like Kline's as shortsighted, potentially exacerbating urban poverty and environmental degradation in a state already grappling with climate change.

Another contributor, environmental advocate Dr. Emily Chen from Easton, focuses on the ecological benefits of subsidized transit. In her letter, Chen argues that shifting costs to riders could deter usage, increasing reliance on personal vehicles and worsening air quality in the densely populated corridors served by SEPTA and LANTA. She cites studies indicating that public transit in Pennsylvania prevents millions of tons of CO2 emissions annually. "If we want to meet our climate goals, we can't price people out of sustainable options," Chen writes. She proposes innovative funding mechanisms, like congestion pricing in urban areas or partnerships with private companies for sponsored routes, to avoid direct fare increases. Chen also addresses the post-COVID recovery, noting that ridership on LANTA has rebounded to about 80% of pre-pandemic levels, but full recovery requires investment, not austerity. Her letter urges lawmakers to view transit as a public good, akin to libraries or parks, essential for community well-being.

A more moderate perspective comes from Tom Reilly, a small business owner in Philadelphia's suburbs who commutes via SEPTA. Reilly acknowledges the need for fiscal balance but suggests a hybrid model: modest fare adjustments coupled with efficiency reforms. He criticizes bureaucratic inefficiencies in both agencies, such as outdated ticketing systems and overlapping routes, which inflate costs. "Riders should pay a fair share, but only if the systems are streamlined," Reilly states. He proposes user feedback mechanisms, like apps for reporting issues, to improve service quality and justify any cost shifts. Reilly's letter bridges the divide, recognizing that while subsidies are necessary, accountability is key to public trust.

The letters also touch on regional disparities. A writer from rural Northampton County, Sarah Jenkins, questions why her taxes support urban-centric systems like SEPTA, which she rarely uses. Jenkins argues for localized funding, where costs are passed to direct beneficiaries, potentially through higher fares or municipal contributions from high-ridership areas. Conversely, urban dweller Raj Patel from Allentown emphasizes interconnectivity, noting that LANTA supports the broader economy by transporting workers to jobs that benefit the entire state.

Overall, these letters underscore a pivotal moment for Pennsylvania's transit policy. With state legislators debating budget proposals that could cut transit funding by up to 15%, the debate pits efficiency against equity. Proponents of passing costs to riders see it as a path to sustainability, while opponents warn of social fallout. The discussion extends beyond finances, invoking questions of who public transit serves and how society values collective mobility. As one anonymous letter poignantly states, "Transit isn't just about getting from A to B—it's about building a connected, equitable future." These reader voices amplify the urgency for balanced solutions, potentially influencing upcoming legislative sessions where decisions on SEPTA and LANTA funding will be made.

This collection of opinions reveals deep-seated concerns about affordability in an inflationary economy, where average household incomes in the Lehigh Valley hover around $70,000, yet transit-dependent families spend a significant portion on fares. Writers like Kline push for market-driven reforms, envisioning a system where high-demand routes subsidize others through dynamic pricing. Gonzalez and Chen, however, frame the issue through lenses of inclusion and sustainability, advocating for policies that prioritize vulnerable populations and long-term environmental health.

In exploring alternatives, several letters suggest public-private partnerships, such as advertising revenue or employer-sponsored passes, to offset costs without direct rider burdens. Reilly's call for transparency resonates, proposing audits to ensure funds are used effectively. Jenkins' regional equity argument highlights tensions between urban and rural taxpayers, a divide that could shape future funding formulas.

Ultimately, the letters serve as a microcosm of national debates on infrastructure funding. As Pennsylvania grapples with aging transit infrastructure—SEPTA's fleet averages over 20 years old, and LANTA faces similar maintenance backlogs—these opinions urge a nuanced approach. Whether through fare hikes, increased subsidies, or innovative reforms, the path forward must balance fiscal realities with the societal benefits of robust public transit. Readers are encouraged to engage with their representatives, as the outcomes could redefine mobility in the region for years to come. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Morning Call PA Article at:
[ https://www.mcall.com/2025/08/09/letters-to-the-editor-pass-public-transit-costs-onto-septa-lanta-riders/ ]