Too Many Wrong-Way Proposals on Transit : Bus Fares Go Up, Subsidies Bring Them Down, and Riders are Baffled

The Southern California Rapid Transit District’s recent fare increase to $1.10 reflects the desperation of a municipal bus agency that has suffered a decrease in federal and state subsidies for several years. Faced with declining revenues, the RTD board had little room to maneuver: It could increase fares or decrease service or do a combination of both. The RTD board is attempting to maintain existing service by increasing fares--the only source of income over which it has any control.

Although I voted against the large fare increase, I strongly support the RTD’s new multiple-ticket fare that should soften the blow for regular bus riders. Although the single-trip fare is scheduled to jump from 85 cents to $1.10, bus riders can purchase tickets for 10 bus trips for $9, only a nickel increase per ride. Unfortunately, even with ticket books the recent fare increase will result in decreased ridership among many, like students and the poor, who will no longer be able to afford the higher fares.

Increasing the cost of riding a bus is a short-term solution to RTD fiscal problems. The base-fare cost can go only so high before ridership drops and buses go empty. The long-term solution is much more complicated. Real progress requires increasing federal and state funding, shifting public and business priorities so that the bus rider can be subsidized as is a single driver in a car, and clear decision-making by elected officials to determine how transit will be provided and who will pay for it.

The responsibility for transit decisions in Los Angeles is currently spread out among several agencies, numerous municipal bus companies, 85 cities and the county Board of Supervisors. The RTD is the most visible transit provider and decision-maker. For this reason the bus mishaps and service problems of recent years brought immediate cries for RTD reorganization. The average bus rider does not know or care that control over local transit decisions is diffused. The average bus rider knows only that the RTD has raised the fare to $1.10.

But any true reorganization must involve the establishment of a regional transit authority empowered to make decisions affecting the whole county. Without a major consolidation of transit authority, transit problems will continue to escalate and be fractionally treated with partial solutions.

A good case in point is the Los Angeles City Council’s recent foray into fighting traffic congestion by using Proposition A funds to develop traffic mitigation measures. Initially the council debated the use of this money to reduce the cost of each bus fare by 35 cents for riders originating in Los Angeles during peak hours. Most recently the fare subsidy proposal has become only one option in what may be a larger menu of transit initiatives to offset the public’s growing dissatisfaction with increasing gridlock.

The commuter subsidy proposal has some attractive features. Providing direct fare subsidies to the commuter will surely increase transit use among students, the elderly and the disabled--groups for which cost is a prime consideration.

But a subsidy alone will not lure people out of their cars without improved service. The peak-hour subsidy will make commuting by bus even less attractive by loading on more riders at precisely the times that the system is already overloaded. The result of lower peak-hour fares will be overcrowded buses and less reliability, unless more buses are added to the system (which would cost more than the district can afford now).

The commuter subsidy would be exactly the opposite of the two-tier fare schedule adopted by many successful transit agencies that offer lower fares during noncommuter hours to encourage riders who can be flexible to ride the buses when they are not full. The 35-cent fare reduction proposal turns this basic transit principle on its head; it encourages discretionary riders to ride during crowded peak hours. Only with fewer riders during peak hours can transit service be improved without adding buses to the system. Arguably, then, the goal of gaining more commuter riders is actually better achieved by subsidizing off-peak-hour riders, thereby reducing crowding and making the commuter’s trip more comfortable and convenient.

By itself, a peak-hours fare cut invites disaster. Current patrons will get the 35-cent subsidy but likely experience overcrowding and delays as new riders use the system. Ultimately all riders will have to make the personal decision as to whether a bus subsidy is worth the inconvenience of overcrowding at peak hours. Commuters who have the option of driving their cars and for whom 35 cents is not enough incentive will return to their cars.

The only way to get and keep more commuters in buses is to improve service--including adding more frequently scheduled, comfortable buses along routes.

At the same time, policy-makers must find a way to keep fares reasonable for all Los Angeles residents, especially the poor and transit-dependent. The only real solution is simple: a regional transit authority to coherently address all of the county’s transit problems, and federal and state budgets that reflect the crucial importance of mass transit. Anything less will be an empty promise.