The People’s Problem Isn’t Rail vs. Buses : Transit: Taxpayers voted for both; what they got was the MTA placing the interests of its employees ahead of the public’s.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr.’s refusal to budge on his injunction blocking the MTA bus-fare increase is encouraging. The issue, overdue for the court’s attention, is discrimination, but not principally as argued by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

There is no denying that the rail system would provide little benefit to the poor, who would be hurt most by the fare increase. But even if the plaintiffs prevail, bus riders will ultimately lose, because the cause of MTA fare increases will not have been addressed. Even if this fare increase is averted, others will follow in short order, because MTA costs are out of control.

The voters of Los Angeles County approved hundreds of millions in annual transit taxes in 1980 and 1982, yet there is less MTA bus service. Fares were kept lower for a time but have been driven up sharply since 1985, at far more than inflationary rates. Virtually all of the money for bus-service improvements--and then some--has been consumed in cost increases above inflation. For years, bus costs have been substantially higher than necessary. This, not the rail system, and not the economic downturn, is the cause of the MTA budget deficit and the unnecessary fare increases from 1985 through 1994.

The poor are not likely to prevail against MTA’s expensive taxpayer-financed defense. Nonetheless, the low-income citizens who rely on MTA bus service are victims of discrimination. The source of the discrimination is special-interest control of transit. Transit unit costs in Los Angeles are at least double the competitive market rate for virtually the same services provided under contract by private companies with unionized work forces. The excessively high costs stem from lack of competition. The result is that MTA bus driver compensation is more than double that of private unionized drivers. MTA bus drivers, who require relatively little training, are paid more than school teachers, who must earn a college degree. And it’s more than bus drivers; excessive employee compensation is rife at MTA. Low-income bus riders, other bus riders and the taxpayers all face insidious discrimination that places the private interests of MTA employees ahead of the public interest.

This same problem has manifested itself around the world. In response, an inexorable trend is under way toward competitive contracting (private contracting) of public transit services. A “seamless” system is provided to the transit customer, as the transit authority retains control over routes, fares, quality and safety. But there is a big difference. Competition for contracts keeps costs down.

London provides half of its bus service through competitive contacting and will convert the rest by the end of the decade. Sweden, Denmark and New Zealand are among the nations that have or are converting to competitive contracting.

And progress is being made in the United States. San Diego now provides more than 40% of its bus service through competitive contracting. The results have been impressive. Fifteen years ago, San Diego transit unit costs were higher than Los Angeles’. Competitive contracting has greatly moderated San Diego cost increases. If Los Angeles transit costs had risen at the San Diego rate over the last 15 years, MTA would be spending at least $250 million less in 1994 for the present level of bus service.

Competitive contracting has been a great success where tried in Los Angeles. For example, the competitively contracted Foothill Transit Zone and City of Los Angeles express bus services cost 60% less than their predecessor SCRTD services, with better quality and safety.

The fact is that MTA is spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually more than necessary to provide bus service. This is a waste of taxes and it is contemptuous of taxpayers who are already burdened by myriad growing public needs. Worse, it injures the people for whom transit subsidies were established--the poor.

While urban rail systems are virtually the most expensive and least effective transportation improvements, there is no reason to choose between bus and rail. The people of Los Angeles County voted for rail and will get less than promised. They voted for more bus service and didn’t get it. They voted for lower bus fares and got little of it. What they didn’t vote for was excessive transit-employee compensation, and that is what they have received in profligate quantities.

Hatter’s decision presents an opportunity to reverse “take the money and run government” and restore the promises made to all Los Angeles County citizens, rich, middle-income and poor.