The Fare Game: Is It Worth Lowering Price of Bus Trips to Lure Riders?

Even if you never take the bus, your commute is affected by those who do--or don’t.

Increased use of public transit can reduce traffic congestion and smog and improve the overall quality of life.

So, should the Metropolitan Transportation Authority be seeking to raise the bus fare from $1.10 to $1.35--knowing that as the price goes up, ridership goes down? Or should it roll back the fare, perhaps to the 50-cent level charged a decade ago when ridership reached an all-time high?

The fare is the subject of a bitter court fight in which community activists allege that the transit agency has discriminated against minority and poor riders by pursuing costly rail projects that largely benefit affluent white commuters. Legal issues aside, the question remains: Is it good public policy to keep the fare low to encourage bus ridership?

The MTA says it needs to raise the fare to close a budget deficit. But some transportation experts believe different approaches might be more productive--actually elevating ridership levels and taking more cars off the road.

Consider what other cities do to increase bus ridership: Dallas cuts fares to 25 cents on smoggy days. The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority gives away bus passes to welfare recipients. The Riverside transit agency lets everyone ride the bus for free two days a year.

The MTA? It promises free rides to anyone whose bus arrives more than 15 minutes late, but doesn’t advertise the program.

The transit agency also offered free rides to the homeless immediately after last year’s earthquake and cut the fare to 25 cents on New Year’s Eve to keep drunks off the road.

Maybe it could award “frequent rider mileage,” rewarding bus passengers rolling up mega-miles with free bus travel. Metrolink, which operates commuter trains between Los Angeles and its suburbs, is talking to airlines about making train trips eligible for frequent flier mileage.

When the old Southern California Rapid Transit District lowered the fare to 50 cents between 1983 and 1986, boardings rose to a record 1.7 million a day. “We went scrounging around the country to acquire buses. . . . We were overwhelmed with riders,” said Marvin Holen, who served on the board of the RTD and its successor, the MTA, for two decades.

Today, the MTA records 1.1 million boardings a day. A drop of at least 5% in ridership is forecast once the new fare goes into effect. Bus ridership has dropped in some other cities--mostly due to the recession--but the MTA has had among the largest declines.

Transit officials say the roadblock to rolling back the fare to 50 cents is plain and simple: money. The agency would need about $140 million to offset the lost revenues.

“You have to face the economic realities that a transit system is up against,” said Chip Bishop of the American Public Transit Assn. in Washington, D.C. “You cannot give this service away and expect to remain in business. . . . In this era of shrinking government subsidies, transit authorities really don’t have a lot of choices on where to get the revenue from.”

But even though cash is in short supply, Holen contends that the bigger obstacle to increasing bus ridership is a lack of political will.

“The MTA . . . lost its way with respect to its purpose, which is to provide public transportation,” he said. “You don’t do it by reducing ridership on the bus system.” Indeed, although the MTA ran ads last year attacking striking workers, it rarely runs ads promoting bus ridership.

The 50-cent fare in effect between 1983 and 1986 was required by Proposition A, the first of two measures that raised the sales tax in Los Angeles County by half a cent to fund transit projects. The proposition’s author, then-County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, saw the reduced fare as critical to winning public support for the tax increase.

Critics suggest that MTA board members have put less money into a bus system that largely serves low-income minorities because they want to deliver spiffy rail projects to their middle-income constituents. Transit officials respond that they must build rail because buses alone won’t solve the region’s transportation problems.

The MTA is spending $580 million to operate its bus system this year--down from $640 million last year. MTA bus operations represent about 20% of the agency’s $2.9-billion budget.

Transit officials have defended the first fare hike in six years. They also say the fare is comparable to that charged in other big cities. Officials say they have sought to soften the impact on poor riders by offering 90-cent tokens, which can be used in lieu of paying the $1.35 cash fare.

County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who chairs the MTA board, said taxpayers are already subsidizing one-third of the $1.10 fare.

“What you want to do is create greater efficiencies, and you do that by bringing private sector efficiencies to the public sector,” he said, explaining that the way to increase bus ridership is through increased contracting out of bus service to private companies.

A fare rollback also creates a Catch-22 situation, MTA officials say.

When bus ridership increases, the MTA must spend more to put more buses on the street to meet the increased demand.

Officials also say a lower fare will not be enough to attract many middle-income commuters. Bus service must be made more convenient, they say.

There is precedent for lowering fares--even doing away with them--to promote bus ridership.

The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Austin, Tex., operated a no-fare bus system for 15 months until the end of 1990. Ridership jumped 42%.

But the agency put a 50-cent fare in effect after receiving--surprisingly--complaints about the free service. Parents said the free buses were helping students play hooky. They also griped that the lack of fares was attracting transients.