Why Bus vs. Rail?
A Brief Background:
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) has overseen public transit and highway policy in LA County since 1976. The Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) separately operated the rapid transit bus system. The two organizations merged in order to develop transportation together; however, both kept their separate titles and managed separated agendas for buses and rails. Furthermore, the LACTC had financial control over the RTD. These factors contributed to a bus versus rail structure, rather than integrating the two to work together. As a result of this, funding has become increasingly polarized between low income, inner city communities, in comparison with higher income, suburban communities (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 34). Furthermore, the bus system has been understood to be a transit of last resort, for the urban poor, elderly, disabled, and students. As explained by Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, “…as LA’s urban poor became increasingly Latino, black, Asian, and Pacific Islander, so did most of the bus riders” (2004, p. 34).
In 1980, a half-cent sales tax created by Proposition A supported the bus system with $340 million per year. For the first years after it passed, 20 percent of its funds were used to reduce bus fares from 85 cents to 50 cents. This decrease led to a rise in bus ridership, from 354 million one way trips per year in 1982, to 497 million in 1985, which reinforced that ridership is highly dependent upon fares (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35). After 1985, funds dedicated to subsidize bus fares were diverted for rail construction use, and additional funds were not created to keep the 50 cent fare; the fare increased then to 85 cents and then to $1.10. This also led to service cuts and ridership decreased to below 376 rides per year, or more than 20 percent (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35).
In 1990, Proposition C was passed, which allowed for a half-cent sales tax to expand public transport in Los Angeles. Both Proposition C and A tried to create clear guidelines on how funds for bus and rail should be allocated. However, due to 40 percent of the funds being designated for discretionary funding, most of the funds have been spent on rail projects, and as a result the bus system has been defunded (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35).
More than 60 percent of public transportation riders in Los Angeles are from households with total incomes under $15,000 (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 36). In 1992, the RTD had a shortfall of $59 million, and requested the LACTC to use discretionary funds to help (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 36). They agreed, but instead of using discretionary funds, funds from future RTD bus purchases were used, and discretionary funds remained purely to fund rail projects. In 1992, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority was created, but the unresolved issues still remained (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 37).
At a public hearing in April, 1994, “Elderly groups testified that they felt imprisoned in their homes because the MTA buses were so slow and the connections and transfers so difficult. Low-income workers explained that the existing bus schedules were so unreliable that they had to leave for work hours before they had to clock-in, for fear of being late and losing their jobs…” Low income workers also found the $42 monthly bus pass too costly, and the blind feared to wait on street corners for buses for about an hour (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 38). Despite these concerns, in July 1994, the bus fare was increased to $1.35, or by 23 percent, the monthly pass was eliminated, and bus service was further reduced (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 38). Meanwhile, the Pasadena Blue Line light rail was given $123 million, leaving the bus system with a deficit of $126 million (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 39).
Reasons for supporting rail?
The Bus Riders Union:
The Bus Riders Union additionally states that they aim:
Consolidating Bus and Rail Systems
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) has overseen public transit and highway policy in LA County since 1976. The Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) separately operated the rapid transit bus system. The two organizations merged in order to develop transportation together; however, both kept their separate titles and managed separated agendas for buses and rails. Furthermore, the LACTC had financial control over the RTD. These factors contributed to a bus versus rail structure, rather than integrating the two to work together. As a result of this, funding has become increasingly polarized between low income, inner city communities, in comparison with higher income, suburban communities (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 34). Furthermore, the bus system has been understood to be a transit of last resort, for the urban poor, elderly, disabled, and students. As explained by Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, “…as LA’s urban poor became increasingly Latino, black, Asian, and Pacific Islander, so did most of the bus riders” (2004, p. 34).
In 1980, a half-cent sales tax created by Proposition A supported the bus system with $340 million per year. For the first years after it passed, 20 percent of its funds were used to reduce bus fares from 85 cents to 50 cents. This decrease led to a rise in bus ridership, from 354 million one way trips per year in 1982, to 497 million in 1985, which reinforced that ridership is highly dependent upon fares (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35). After 1985, funds dedicated to subsidize bus fares were diverted for rail construction use, and additional funds were not created to keep the 50 cent fare; the fare increased then to 85 cents and then to $1.10. This also led to service cuts and ridership decreased to below 376 rides per year, or more than 20 percent (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35).
In 1990, Proposition C was passed, which allowed for a half-cent sales tax to expand public transport in Los Angeles. Both Proposition C and A tried to create clear guidelines on how funds for bus and rail should be allocated. However, due to 40 percent of the funds being designated for discretionary funding, most of the funds have been spent on rail projects, and as a result the bus system has been defunded (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 35).
More than 60 percent of public transportation riders in Los Angeles are from households with total incomes under $15,000 (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 36). In 1992, the RTD had a shortfall of $59 million, and requested the LACTC to use discretionary funds to help (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 36). They agreed, but instead of using discretionary funds, funds from future RTD bus purchases were used, and discretionary funds remained purely to fund rail projects. In 1992, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority was created, but the unresolved issues still remained (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 37).
At a public hearing in April, 1994, “Elderly groups testified that they felt imprisoned in their homes because the MTA buses were so slow and the connections and transfers so difficult. Low-income workers explained that the existing bus schedules were so unreliable that they had to leave for work hours before they had to clock-in, for fear of being late and losing their jobs…” Low income workers also found the $42 monthly bus pass too costly, and the blind feared to wait on street corners for buses for about an hour (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 38). Despite these concerns, in July 1994, the bus fare was increased to $1.35, or by 23 percent, the monthly pass was eliminated, and bus service was further reduced (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 38). Meanwhile, the Pasadena Blue Line light rail was given $123 million, leaving the bus system with a deficit of $126 million (Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2004, p. 39).
Reasons for supporting rail?
It is now perceived that the attention and resources given to rail came from a goal to attract a more affluent, non transit-dependent part of the population to public transportation. The idea was that "choice riders," who have cars and are able to choose the mode of transportation they use, would view rail as being higher quality, "faster, more comfortable, more dependable because not caught in street traffic..." (Rubin, 2000). And yet, choice riders and transit dependent riders are attracted to similar features when it comes to public transportation. However, because choice riders are able to choose their cars over riding public transportation, they are able to have greater leverage (Rubin, 2000). Is this fair?
Reasons for supporting the bus?
Reasons for supporting the bus?
The Bus Riders Union:
Current demands include a $20 monthly bus pass, a 50 cent fare with a free transfer, an increase of 2,500 clean fuel buses, a freeze on rail spending, and a $10 student bus pass sold at schools (The Labor Community Strategy Center, 2013). The Bus Riders Union claims: "Mass transportation is a human right" (The Labor Community Strategy Center, 2013). And yet, the focus of the Bus Riders Union is to improve public transportation for the poor. Is this a good goal?
The Bus Riders Union additionally states that they aim:
...to promote environmentally sustainable public transportation for the entire population of Los Angeles, on the premise that affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound mass transit is a human right. The organizing and public policy work of the Bus Riders Union reflects the principle that the needs of low-income people, and oppressed nationality peoples and communities - Black, Latino, Mexicano/Chicano, Asian/Pacific Islander and Indigenous peoples must be given priority since they suffer systematic racial and national oppression in our society.
-The Labor Community Strategy Center, 2013
Consolidating Bus and Rail Systems
By only working for those who are transport dependent, does the Bus Riders Union lose sight of the overall aims of public transportation? Should the Bus Riders Union be working towards a system that helps only the transport dependent? Should the poor be given priority? And why the focus on the bus? Is this a good system in the long-run? These are all important questions to ask.
While it is an admirable goal of the Bus Riders Union to fight against "racism, national oppression, class oppression, sexism and the oppression of immigrants” (The Labor Community Strategy Center, 2013), it is an entirely different question if this is the best way to go about achieving this goal. It seems that the conversation doesn't have to be bus versus rail. It should be, how can we improve transportation for everyone?
In the long-run, if there continues to be a distinct difference between bus and rail, rather than having an integrated system, it will not help the poor. Because the more affluent have greater leverage as choice riders, they also have more political power. While this may not be "just," this is simply how our society functions. It is not necessarily a bad goal to attract more affluent riders. It is also not necessarily a bad goal to improve transportation for the poor. However, the bus should not be simply for the poor, and rail should not be solely for the wealthy. For the pubic transportation system of Los Angeles to truly function in the long-run, the public transportation system needs to become a more fluid, integrated network that will serve all populations, regardless of race or income.
| Previous page on path | Improving Public Transportation in Los Angeles, page 4 of 12 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Why Bus vs. Rail?"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...