BEEFING UP BUSES MTA'S BEST OPTION.

Byline: Tariku Debretsion

IT is imperative that fairness and economic common sense should guide urban transportation planning. Fairness: Provide service to those with the highest transit need. Economic common sense: Provide service and benefits to the largest constituency with the least burden to the taxpayer.

Whether to spend $6 billion to build a 17-mile subway system or overhaul the crumbling bus system for the cost of a mile of subway; whether to subsidize a bus rider at $1.17, a subway user at $2.17 or a person on commuter rail at $5.51 - these are the choices from which fairness and economic common sense must select.

The mismanagement, the cost overruns, the burden to the taxpayer and the plight of the transit dependent made Los Angeles residents vote overwhelmingly against the subway system in the November election. This was not a vote against public transportation, it was a vote against a transportation policy that defied fairness and economic common sense.

In 1984, when Proposition A was used to subsidize a 50-cent bus fare, annual bus ridership reached its top at 497 million. A decade and a half later - after billions of dollars of expenditure on the rail system - total ridership is down by 113,000. Most of these commuters were forced out of the transit system. The shift to the car has manifested itself in rising traffic congestion. The drop in bus ridership is equal to more than three times the ridership that could be gained by the entire proposed rail system when it is fully operational. It doesn't make economic sense.

In 1995, MTA commissioned Udewitz Associates to study the impact of further cuts to bus service. The study concluded, ``Since bus ridership is largely composed of minorities and persons of low-income status, these segments of the population in particular would be adversely affected by the proposed service modifications. Minorities or (non-whites) represent approximately 60 percent of the county's total population and 82 percent of MTA's transit ridership. More than 60 percent of the MTA ridership was indicated to have annual household incomes of less than $15,000 compared to about 20 percent for all households in Los Angeles County.''

Some of the study's findings are worth noting: 62.5 percent of bus riders reside in the central district of Los Angeles where the largest concentration of below-poverty-line households are; the average travel distance is three miles. Sadly, it takes about an hour to complete the commute. The survey of origin-destination of the transit dependent shows 55.3 percent of the trips are to or from work, 12.5 percent to or from school, 8.1 percent to or from shopping, and 24.1 percent for other means. The bus system is the best transit model to serve widely scattered destinations.

Making bus operations efficient and reliable gives those who cannot afford the luxury of a car an alternative to take them to work and out of welfare. Improved service also might convince those who can afford a car to stick with buses.

To the community at large, satisfying existing essential needs with a reasonable capital outlay makes real sense. It reduces congestion, particularly in the central city area. It keeps off the street old, poorly maintained cars, which are big contributors to smog. It reduces crashes and the number of people driving without insurance.

The recognition of the bus system as the future of public transportation in Los Angeles has come haltingly. Even the present awareness has come in a mixed package. On the positive side, there is a belated effort to rectify past errors. On the negative side, issues that divert the main focus off the task of rectification are gaining the upper hand.

Divestiture is one of these disruptive issues. It is the effort of the suburban elite to break the Metropolitan Transportation Authority into smaller operational units to be run by local representatives. As attractive as the idea may sound, it would lead to unfair and irrational distribution of service. The bus dependent, who are concentrated in the central region and who lack political clout, will be impacted negatively. The suburban residents will be burdened with a white elephant. Few people in high-income brackets are inclined to ride buses.

Years of neglect have left the MTA in need of an immediate massive overhaul. Thirty-eight percent of the total active bus fleet is 14 years and above. Of these, 419 are 17 years old. The impact of this on bus operations is daunting. At any given time, about 20 percent of the fleet is not able to make it out of the yard. About 30 percent of the buses that go out experience breakdowns. Much of service unreliability and crowding is due to malfunctions. The morale of operators and mechanics has been blasted by this shoddy equipment.

In light of this, the MTA board's decision to buy 2,095 buses over six years is a welcome relief. But its decision to buy only compressed natural-gas buses is causing a bottleneck in short-range plans to update the fleet and is courting disaster in the long run. Compressed natural-gas buses are more expensive and need a lot of time and capital to modify existing facilities and train mechanics. The technology so far has proven unreliable. These buses break down as often as the 12- to 14-year-old diesel buses. Major breakdowns might sideline these buses and leave the MTA with very limited alternatives to meet the crisis.

Air quality and transit service would be better served if the present antiquated equipment are replaced with proven technology.

As much as MTA's bus operation is beset with crises, it has great potential. Every day it carries 1.1 million people over a distance that, if stretched, would circle the Earth 11 times. Public transportation planning in Los Angeles should not try to invent the wheel but should improve on what is already up and running. Bus operation should not be regarded as an inferior product, but rather as the best transit model to meet the unique social demographics of our region. Transit experts, professionals and public representatives should adopt unified goals. Guided by fairness and economic common sense, it is possible to commute together to this lofty goal.