Date: February 10, 2006
Time: 2:00 - 3:00 pm
Location: Holmes Hall 244

Speaker: Brian Taylor, Professor, UCLA

Understanding Transit Costs, Fares, and Subsidies:  An Analysis of the
Los Angeles MTA

Public transit is highly subsidized in the U.S.  While there are many
reasons why we choose to directly subsidize transit services, such
subsidies are, in effect, a transfer of income from tax payers to
transit users.  Further, since the subsidy of transit service can vary
significantly among systems, travel modes, and even lines, the subsidy
of travelers can very dramatically.  This paper examines the ways that
transit subsidy equity can be measured, and reviews the previous studies
on this topic.  We then propose a more sophisticated and precise method
for measuring the subsidy of individual transit trips than has been
employed in the past.  Using service consumption and travel survey data
from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
and a set of multi-factor cost allocation models developed in an earlier
phase of this research, we examine the distribution of public transit
subsidies among various demographic groups with far more precision than
in previous research.  In sum, we find that the distribution of transit
costs and benefits among transit users is regressive with respect to
income - more regressive than was found in most of the research on this
question conducted two or more decades ago.  We find that, on average,
consumers of short-distance local bus service who are
disproportionately low-income, African-American or Latino, younger, and
female require substantially less subsidy per trip than consumers of
long-distance express or rail service who are disproportionately higher-
income, Anglo or Asian, older, and male.  While low-income residents in
general benefit from the transfer of income in the public subsidy of
transit, we find that - among transit users - the benefits of transit
subsidies disproportionately accrue to those transit users least in need
of public assistance.  These findings raise questions regarding the
conflicting objectives of transit system policies which seek to deploy
services to attract both transit dependents and choice riders.