Bus vs. Rail Spending

* Re James E. Moore’s commentary, “Shift the Spending to Buses,” Sept. 7:

Moore suggests that the MTA should allocate Proposition A and C money to subsidize bus routes, rather than use the money for where it was intended--rail-transit systems. To Moore, the socially correct policy is to use the funds to keep bus fares down for the poor people of Los Angeles. While I certainly agree that helping the poor is noble and worthwhile, I humbly suggest, however, that the intent of the voting public in taxing themselves was to build rail lines, not to subsidize bus fares.

I personally voted for both propositions with the understanding that rail lines would get people out of their cars and onto trains, thereby reducing both smog and congestion. It seems reasonable to conclude that the propositions passed because the citizens of Los Angeles County want rail transit so as to improve the quality of life in the L.A. basin. I am quite sure that the taxpayers would not have agreed to pay higher taxes in order to subsidize bus fares.

Moore uses his faulty premise that good social policy dictates use of Proposition A and C funds to subsidize bus fares to laud the recent decision of U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter in imposing a stay on MTA rate hikes. Assuredly, the learned Judge Hatter had good reason for making his decision. Nevertheless, Moore’s suggestion that the MTA use public funds for an unintended use is clearly erroneous.

JEFFREY T. GWYNN

Hawthorne

* I am most disappointed that you published the mean-spirited, divisive and distorted letter by Katherine C. Sheehan (Sept. 11).

Inserting the race issue into transit financing is unnecessary and inaccurate. There is no credible evidence that discrimination figures into the decisions of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The MTA and its board are strongly committed to providing improved transit to all of Los Angeles County. Lower-income areas and minority residents have been especially well-served when it comes to transit innovations and additions. The Long Beach Blue Line, the county’s first modern rail line, serves many minority and low-income areas and draws a two-thirds minority ridership.

The MTA has designated its two inner-city bus divisions to receive the fleet’s newest buses in recent years.

The plaintiffs’ argument that money from rail projects could be transferred to buses is inaccurate. The proposal to transfer $50 million from the Pasadena Blue Line to bus operations is illegal. The only possible Pasadena Blue Line money that could be transferred to bus operations is approximately $5 million, available only in the unlikely event that the MTA defaults in its bond obligations.

The portion of the lawsuit calling for a return of the monthly passes will cause more of a burden on the poor. According to figures provided by the MTA, only 18% of its riders use regularly monthly passes, with over 40% of those having annual household incomes over $50,000. This meant that the monthly pass holders were being subsidized by poorer riders, who were forced to pay cash fares each day.

Instead, a token system, with tokens costing 90 cents, 20 cents lower than the previous basic fare, was implemented, giving a cost break to the frequent rider.

Judge Hatter’s decision not to resolve this case until Oct. 17 will cost the MTA $4 million. This will end up hurting the people the plaintiffs claim they are trying to help because cuts throughout the system will have to be made to balance the budget.

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor, Fifth District

Member, MTA Board of Directors