Planning Responsibly for the Future : Transit: The MTA’s proposal is merely playing catch-up.

It is not difficult to understand what occurred to bring the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to the $126-million operations deficit it faces. For the last six years, costs have continued to rise, while fares and other revenue sources stagnated.

In the coming weeks, the MTA board of directors will scrutinize a balanced-budget proposal for the coming fiscal year. The proposed budget erases the deficit with fiscally prudent, though sometimes painful, cost-cutting measures: the elimination of 515 administrative employees, a 50% reduction in the use of outside services and the shelving of a number of transit programs.

As a last resort, the budget also proposes a fare increase.

From the transit user’s point of view, raising fares is by far the most troublesome. Put in its proper perspective, however, the fare increase from $1.10 to $1.35 does not place an unreasonable burden on riders.

Eight of the nation’s 10 largest transit systems that operate bus and rail--Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Miami, New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh--have fares higher than the MTA’s, and most have had them for several years. Only Boston and Washington have lower fares. In California, San Diego introduced its $1.50 fare last year, and Sacramento its $1.25 fare two years ago. In contrast, MTA has not increased fares in six years. By raising our fare to $1.35, Los Angeles will merely be catching up with inflation and other cities throughout the country.

Although the budget proposes eliminating monthly passes for all but the elderly, disabled and K-12 students, discount fares will still be available. Bags containing 10 tokens would be sold for $10, making each ride $1. This, curiously, will make the system more equitable, since studies have shown that the truly disadvantaged can’t afford the $42 monthly cost of a pass and actually end up subsidizing passes for those who can. Eliminating the monthly pass removes this inequity.

Another way we could have saved money is by cutting bus and train service. We decided to keep service cuts to a minimum, canceling or reducing only sparsely used lines or segments. During public hearings, it was clear that if given a choice between losing service and paying a little more to keep it, our riders would rather keep the service. Therefore, 99% of our service will remain intact.

There is a common misconception that our operating-budget problems would be solved if we simply stopped building rail systems or our new headquarters building. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The law prevents us from using for operations capital funds that have been specifically earmarked for construction.

Unlike previous transportation budgets, which often served as yearly Band-Aids, the MTA’s proposed budget not only puts forth a fiscally responsible program for 1995, but it also sets the groundwork for a prudent plan for the future. No longer can we draw up new rail lines or start new service where it seems like a good idea or is politically convenient. The transportation programs of the coming years must solve real problems and be based on the age-old maxim of spending within your means.