PERSPECTIVES ON THE MTA : Transit Can’t Think Short Term : If we don’t raise rates now--just to catch up--rich and poor will suffer from the resulting gridlock.

Claims that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s fare increase and the rail lines we are building are discriminatory are patently absurd. Such claims are offensive and insulting to all the dedicated MTA employees of all ethnic backgrounds who have worked for years to provide quality public transportation for their fellow Los Angeles County citizens. These claims should be firmly rejected by U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. at a hearing he has scheduled for Monday to consider lifting a preliminary injunction that prevents us from implementing a new fare structure.

While virtually every other major transit provider in the country raised fares during the last six years to keep up with rising costs, MTA kept its fare at $1.10. Inflation finally caught up with us, however, resulting in a $126-million deficit for 1995. Before we considered raising fares, we cut 500 staff positions and reduced internal costs substantially. The new fare structure is firmly in line with those in other large urban centers. It was a reasonable and necessary business decision, completely free of discrimination.

The decision not to allow MTA to raise its fares could actually hurt the people it was meant to help. MTA is losing about $110,000 each day the higher fares are not collected. Even if we are successful in court, as we believe we will be, the more time that passes before there is a resolution to this case, the harder it will be for MTA to balance its budget--and the more danger there will be to existing service levels.

It is simply untrue to assert that our current and planned rail systems favor mostly white ridership. Ridership statistics and demographic information regarding the areas the rail lines will serve debunk any claim of racial bias. Three-quarters of all Blue Line riders are minorities; nearly 90% of Red Line subway riders are minorities.

All of the corridors to be served by future rail lines are populated by a high percentage of minorities. The Federal Transportation Administration defines the Pasadena Blue Line as a minority line, because it will serve an area with a 63% minority population. The Green Line, due to open next year, will serve an area in which eight of every 10 residents is a minority. Ninety-six out of every 100 residents living along the Red Line’s eastern extension route are minorities.

Metrolink is the commuter rail line most cited by our critics. The MTA, however, doesn’t operate Metrolink, and its fares are not set by Los Angeles County, but by a separate organization composed of all five counties served. We contribute a relatively small amount from funds that can only be used for commuter rail. These funds could not legally be used for bus operations.

Our critics’ disenchantment with the rail program is shortsighted. The Southern California Assn. of Governments predicts population, employment and travel demand in our region will increase by about one-third in the next two decades. Even with the rail lines we are building, peak-hour freeway speeds are expected to decline to under 10 m.p.h. Such conditions will destroy the regional economy and make it impossible to meet clean-air mandates. Alternative modes, such as rail, will be needed to relieve gridlocked streets and freeways.

Federal court is no place for resolution of the funding priorities for the MTA. Our policy board is duly established as the authority for resolving funding priorities. The board must balance its decision between preparing for the future and meeting the current needs of our patrons.

How much riders should contribute to the cost of their trip and whether their future needs should be met by bus, trains or other new approaches are public-policy questions better left to the MTA board of directors, which is responsible to the electorate.