BREAKING UP MTA NO ANSWER TO WOES THAT PLAGUE AGENCY; PROPOSAL WOULD BE WRONG MEDICINE.

Byline: Tari Debretsion Local View

IT is true that the MTA is in disarray and its bus operation is in shambles. It is a fact that it needs urgent and timely remedies. But breaking down the bus operation into components operated by zones is a cure worse than the sickness.

While dodging the existing problems, breaking up MTA's bus operation will create new ones that will seriously hamper the regional flow of communication and the regional economic recovery.

On Jan 16, the MTA board directed that ``the CEO return to the Board within 90 days with an implementation plan to divest MTA's bus service into subregionally-governed bus service providers or zones.'' This is a throwback to the failed decentralized mass transit realities of the 1950s. The realities of the '90s reflect a highly integrated regional and global economy, with a greater need for faster, smoother and more uniform mass transportation in the region.

Public transportation has been one of the key sectors of industry that is leading the region out of the economic downturn. According to the Labor Market Institute's statistical forecast, the greater Los Angeles area accounts for 52 percent of the urban transport employment in the state, and of this 35 percent is found within L.A. County.

According to the same forecast, employment in public transportation from 1993 to 2005 will grow by 30 percent, outpacing the general economy, which is expected to grow by 26 percent. Average annual earning in transportation service and equipment is cozy - $35,116 and $49,000 respectively (UCLA Business forecast 1996).

A vital industry, regional mass transit - with a high synergy to the whole regional economy - is held hostage to a dubious political agenda. The costly rail system, which was started without consensus and without realistic consideration, regarded by most people as the only viable and affordable means to solve the mass transit problem of the region, is targeted for breakup.

The proponents for breaking up MTA's operation into zones argue that MTA is too large and unwieldy. It is true that the agency is a behemoth created in 1993 by amalgamating two large and competing agencies - RTD and LACTC. It is a one-of-a-kind agency entrusted with the planning, construction and running of rail lines and buses and controlling the traffic flow through this large region's arteries. But the unwieldy nature of the MTA lies in its confused mission rather than its sheer size.

Planning and constructing a transportation system for the next generation and operating a system that moves a million people every day are two different operations with different pulses. Separating the bus operation from the rail planning and construction functions would go a long way toward making the agency more manageable.

The breaking of MTA into entities competing for shrinking subsidies, tax monies and revenues will politicize the entire urban transportation operation. This will make all past and present political duels, such as the one that characterized the Metro Rail vs. bus system, seem like mere child's play. As usual, the affluent, politically well-endowed and less bus-dependent suburban residents will be favored over the lower income, less politically empowered yet more bus-dependent inner-city dwellers. The breaking up of MTA's bus operation into independent zones will result in the agency losing its regional perspective. It will result in pitting local interests against those of the region.

The argument that small bus operations are more cost-effective is unsubstantiated. The cost of a transportation operation lies in the type of equipment, total passenger mileage, traffic conditions and labor costs. Divesting the bus operation can hardly change these factors if the bus operation covers the same area with the same level of service.

The proponents of divesting compare the cost of running MTA's bus operations to that of LADOT and Foothill Transit without taking all the above factors into consideration. But this is like comparing the cost of running a family sedan with that of a big rig.

The only things the proponents of divesting truly hope to change is in the wage and benefit packages of the employees. That is why the rank and file in the MTA bus operation, particularly those represented by unions, feel that this is yet another politically driven agenda that diverts the public focus from tackling tangible problems facing the whole region into lambasting organized labor, as if it were the problem.

Politicians and the unions can only influence wages and benefits marginally. If wages and benefits are set below the market, there will be high turnover, labor strife and low morale, leading to lower quality of work and higher costs. Eventually the market forces will adjust any wage and benefit package to the national average. Hence the disruption to the whole function will not be offset by only a marginal cut in wages and benefits.

On the other hand, for the cost of digging one mile of Metro Rail, MTA could overhaul its antiquated buses and significantly improve the quality and cost of running its bus system. Instead of the disruptive agenda of divesting, the discussion should focus on how to infuse the overdue investment in new reliable and cost-effective buses, how to create a stable leadership, and how to empower the rank and file so that together we all make a difference in the quality of service.