Bus Riders’ Union cites fee discrimination
By Philip Iglauer
Daily Bruin Contributor
The relationship of bus rider to bus provider should be as
harmonious as brother and sister.
However, acrimony typifies the relationship between the Bus
Riders’ Union and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA).
In a recently filed lawsuit, the union contends that current
transit authority policy constitutes a violation of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, which prohibits the use of federal tax dollars on
programs that discriminate on the basis of race.
Stating that the vast majority of MTA bus passengers are
low-income people of color, the union’s mother group, the Strategy
Center, claimed that "these predominately minority bus riders
receive from the MTA poor transit service and low ridership
subsidies."
One example which the union cited was when transit authority
board members voted on July 13, 1994 to raise the bus fare from
$1.10 to $1.35, and to eliminate the $49 a month bus pass,
ostensibly to help pay for the ballooning cost of rail
construction.
When this action was implemented, the Strategy Center obtained a
temporary restraining order against the MTA, preventing them from
eliminating the bus pass.
The cash bus fare now stands at $1.35.
The court battle has come to revolve around a slew of research
conducted in large part by UCLA transportation and urban planning
experts.
The Strategy Center’s findings, based on statistics requested
from the transit authority, show that the total per-rider subsidy
for its middle-income rail users is about 2,000 percent higher than
that for lower-income bus riders.
With these findings in hand, the Strategy Center went to its
legal partner, the National Association for the Advancement of
Color People’s Legal Defense Fund, who then asked UCLA Professor
Brian Taylor to conduct a study of the social equity of MTA
policies.
On Jan. 5, 1996, the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies
produced a report supporting the Strategy Center’s claim.
Institute researchers confirmed a disproportionate use of
transportation resources.
"As a result of these policy choices, minority riders, on the
average, pay substantially more for MTA service and receive lower
average taxpayer subsidies than white riders," their report
concluded.
However, the MTA disagrees with the report’s conclusions.
"What they discount is that we provide a lot of service in
minority areas of town," said Bill Heard, transit authority media
representative. "Just look at the Blue line – a vast majority are
minority riders."
Heard pointed out that these metro rail lines are used by people
of color often enough to be known as ‘minority corridors.’
However, this is not true for every rail server in Los
Angeles.
According to MTA records, the predominately suburban ridership
of MetroLink is at least 69 percent white on all five of its lines,
seemingly disputing the MTA’s assertion of heavy minority
usage.
"MTA does not operate Metro Link," said Heard. "It is not fair
to link the unlinkable. They have their own board and it has a
totally different operating system."
However, many of MTA’s board members are also Metro Link
members. Additionally, Metro Link receives a majority of its
funding from the transit authority.
The complications connected with defining who actually runs
MetroLink reveals the labyrynthine nature of Southern California’s
transportation system.
"All these agencies are run by appointed boards," said Kurt
Luhrsen, a UCLA urban planning graduate student. "Those who sit on
the MetroLink board also sit on the boards of the MTA and SCAG (the
Southern California Association of Governance)."
"It is true the MTA does not operate Metrolink, but it receives
most of all its funding from the MTA," said Taylor, who authored
the 1996 report being cited by the Strategy Center.
Since 1992, MTA provided more than 65 percent of the funding for
MetroLink, and spent approximately $600 million to acquire the
railroad right-of-way used in part by MetroLink.
"(The money) is an issue, because they get funding from (the
MTA)," Luhrsen explained. "So, their policies affect the social
equity of MetroLink’s policies."
Additionally, the lawsuit raises broader implications
surrounding the transit system’s social equity.
"This issue should really be understood in the context of
welfare reduction and the abolition of affirmative action," said
K.S. Park, lawyer for the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates.
The Korean workers’ organization is a co-plaintiff in the class
action suit against the MTA.
"It is important to recruit witnesses from the Korean community,
because a large portion of them ride the bus,"said Park, a UCLA Law
School graduate.
Advocates for the lawsuit emphasized the implications for Los
Angeles’ large student population
"It is imperative for students to get involved as well," he
said.
"Minority or low-income students, who have bus dependent family
should especially be concerned, Park added.
Indeed, UCLA transportation officials confirmed this, describing
number of Bruins regular use of MTA bus lines.
"There are approximately between 1,300 and 1,600 staff, faculty
and students who ride the bus to campus per week," said Penny
Menton, associate director of UCLA’s Transportation Services
department.
This is out of approximately 32,000 students and 18,000 faculty
and staff at UCLA.
Given the importance of creating user-friendly public
transportation in Los Angeles, it is not difficult to understand
the importance of this lawsuit to UCLA’s Urban Planning
faculty.
"The faculty in (the Urban Planning Department) make it a
priority to fight to make sure that the people who need access to
public transportation get it."
PATRICK LAM
Minority commuters have protested fair hikes and the elimination
of the economical bus pass, citing that they violate 1964 Civil
Rights Act.
Comments to webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu