MTA’s Rude Behavior Shows It Is Out of Touch With Its Riders

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board’s conduct while pushing through a fare increase at a meeting Wednesday was so outrageous that it’s hard to single out its most offensive act.

The board raised the basic bus fare from $1.10 to $1.35, eliminated most monthly passes, increased the price of student, senior and disabled passes and boosted the cost of commuting. In the case of the Blue Line train ride from Long Beach to Los Angeles, the cost more than doubled from $1.10 to $2.35.

In a concession to riders, the board kept the price of tokens at 90 cents. But that’s not much help. It’s often easier to buy a rare coin than a token.

*

Even with the fare increase and a strike looming, I don’t think the authority was justified having three or four armed MTA cops standing in front of the rostrum in the County Hall of Administration, as if the board expected the audience to turn violent. Another MTA police crew had already required the audience to pass through a metal detector before entering the meeting room.

The MTA board was rude to those testifying against the fare increase. Members and aides walked around the rostrum, chatting as if they were at a cocktail party. One of the most prominent gossips was Mayor Richard Riordan, who serves on the board and appoints three other board members. With all that power, I’d think the mayor would want to set a better example.

I’ve seen such inattention at other legislative meetings, but never to this degree. One speaker made a futile attempt to attract the attention of the board members. Pointing to some of the protesters, she said: “This is their first experience at a public meeting. Is this the way you treat them?” She was ignored.

One legal-minded MTA critic told me he was particularly irked by the way the board ignored the Brown Act, which requires government agencies to conduct their business openly. No copies of the final fare increase proposal, devised by Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, were made available to the audience, a step required by the Brown Act.

I couldn’t figure out what she had proposed. “Would it be considered hostile if I asked for a copy of her plan?” I said to an MTA aide. The staff member said no, copies were on all the board members’ desks. He got me one, but that didn’t help the transit riders in the audience.

Finally, there was the board’s refusal to grant opponents of the increase another 10 minutes to speak. Board member Richard Alatorre, a Los Angeles city councilman, proposed the additional time. But the opposition, led by Alatorre’s enemy, Molina, outvoted him. It seemed ironic because Molina, in her election campaign, promised to give the poor a voice.

These are the familiar symptoms of too much power and isolation. There are other signs around the MTA.

A number of new ideas are circulating around town about how to prevent the transit system from heading into a long, downward cycle of fare increases, service reductions and declining ridership, but you don’t hear about them from the transportation authority.

Earlier this year, the Reason Foundation, a public policy think tank, sponsored a conference in Los Angeles to discuss innovations in public transit. For example, why is the MTA bogged down on two expensive choices of transportation--trains and big buses. Why not have something small, like Super Shuttle, capable of picking up people at their homes and businesses and carrying them to commuter buses or trains?

Most recently, new ideas were proposed to the MTA by a group of lobbyists and consultants representing transit construction companies, other businesses and public agencies with an interest in transportation. Their economic futures depend on an efficient public transportation system, and they’re afraid the MTA is incapable of creating one. They prepared a report called “Saving Transit in Los Angeles: Where We Need to Go.”

The report said the recession-driven reduction in sales tax revenue, a major source of MTA funding, exposed the weakness of a wasteful organization. It proposed consolidations, such as turning over San Gabriel Valley commuter lines to Foothill Transit, and bringing in private operators to run shuttle-type services. The savings could be used to improve inner-city bus service, and for rail lines. It proposed saving money by completing much of the high-speed Metro Rail above ground rather than in an expensive subway.

*

Franklin E. White, the MTA’s chief executive officer, kissed off the report. “In cobbling together a host of ephemeral solutions, the document promises too much to too many,” White told the authority board.

But these ideas shouldn’t be pushed aside. Continued higher fares and worse service will have an impact far beyond the area of public transportation. The backers of the “Saving Transit in Los Angeles” report know that a disintegrating public transportation system will make it difficult for workers to get to their jobs.

And a bankrupt MTA would have to cancel the rail construction projects that business and political leaders hope will provide many new jobs in construction, rail car assembly, electronics and communications systems.

The MTA’s actions hurt the poor in ways that have long-term effects. You could see this at Wednesday’s hearing. Some of the speakers said they used adult student passes to attend night school to learn English, and the increase would make the trip to class more expensive. “We want to have a better life,” one of them said. “We want to speak with the teachers and help (our children) with their homework.”

The MTA board’s decisions ripple out far into the economy and society. But board members appear to be too isolated and arrogant to know or care. Maybe they should try to buy some tokens and mingle with the public they are supposed to serve.