|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 7:58:07 GMT -8
Jason S.
User ID: 1898874 Sep 6th [2001] 1:27 AM
Court Orders MTA to Buy New Buses
Transit: Appellate judges reject an appeal by the agency, saying it has failed to comply with a 1996 consent
decree.
By JEFFREY L. RABIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
In a major defeat for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a
federal appeals court on Friday ordered the transit agency to buy
hundreds of new buses to relieve overcrowding throughout Los Angeles
County.
The long-awaited decision, which took 16 months for the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals to hand down, rejects the MTA's appeal of a
court order issued more than two years ago by the chief U.S. District
Court judge in Los Angeles calling for the agency to buy 248 additional
buses.
In a strongly worded 2-1 ruling, the appeals court found that the MTA
has failed to comply with a landmark October 1996 consent decree
intended to limit the number of passengers who are forced to stand while
riding on the agency's buses. Appeals Court Judge Barry G. Silverman,
writing for the majority, found the MTA's arguments against compliance
with the district court's order "quite disingenuous."
Silverman said the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the transit agency to
immediately purchase the additional buses and to comply with the consent decree's targets for
reducing overcrowding.
But appeals court Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall dissented, saying U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter
Jr. "failed to appreciate the unnecessarily intrusive nature" of the remedy he ordered to reduce
overcrowding on MTA bus lines.
Silverman and Judge James R. Browning noted that the consent decree requires the MTA to
reallocate resources from other programs to reduce overcrowding on the bus system, which is used
primarily by poor and minority riders.
The far-reaching decision could force the MTA to make major new investments in the bus system.
And that could slow the agency's plans to build some new light-rail lines.
Richard Larson, attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Bus Riders
Union, hailed the decision as a total victory. Larson said the ruling means that "the MTA is not
above the law."
Julian Burke, chief executive officer of the MTA, expressed disappointment at the ruling and said he
will call a meeting of the agency's board members as soon as possible to review the decision and its
implications for the future.
Burke said the MTA's bus service is continuing to improve with the arrival of new equipment to
replace aging buses. He said the bus system is far more reliable and comfortable today than it was
when the legal issues arose.
A key question facing the MTA board is whether to appeal the latest decision.
Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn issued a statement urging his colleagues on the MTA board to
end their legal appeals.
'The people of Los Angeles deserve quality, reliable bus service," Hahn said. "As a member of the
MTA board, I will continue to urge my colleagues to end the legal process and start working to
meet our goal of improving and increasing bus service."
Led by former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, the MTA waged a long and aggressive attack
on the consent decree even though the transit agency's board voluntarily signed the agreement in
1996 to avoid a trial on a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by bus rider advocates.
The MTA board brought in a retired appeals court Judge Shirley M. Hufstedler in an effort to
convince the appeals court panel that Judge Hatter had gone too far in ordering the purchase of
additional buses.
MTA officials argued that the agency did not have the money to operate the additional buses. They
suggested that the court did not have the authority to order the purchase of new buses. And they
insisted the principles of federalism precluded the court from interfering in the operation of the transit
agency.
But Larson said the agency now must comply.
"I think the game is over for the MTA," he said. "They took one last shot by using a former 9th
Circuit judge to argue and it did not work."
Larson said the agency not only must buy more buses to reduce overcrowding, but it also must
expand bus service to improve access to schools, jobs and medical care for transit-dependent
residents of Los Angeles County.
Dispute Grew From 1994 Rights Case
The civil rights attorney said the MTA is "wildly in violation" of the latest load factor standard and
cannot possibly meet a more stringent standard that takes effect next summer.
The consent decree required that by the end of 1997, no more than an average of 15 passengers be
standing on an MTA bus during any 20-minute peak period. The maximum number of standees
dropped to 11 by June 2000. The load factor target will shrink to nine passengers next July.
However, Burke said he still believes the MTA is in substantial compliance with the consent decree.
The legal wrangling has its roots in a civil rights case filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund and the Bus Riders Union in 1994 after the MTA sought to raise fares and
eliminate monthly passes. Their lawsuit alleged that the transit agency was discriminating against its
poor and minority bus riders by neglecting the bus system and pouring money into costly rail
projects.
Hatter has presided over the case since it was filed. He blocked the fare increase from taking effect
and the MTA later agreed to reinstate the popular monthly passes.
Rather than risk a trial on the civil rights issues, the MTA board signed the consent decree. In the
years since, the agency has resisted efforts by court-appointed special master Donald T. Bliss to
require far more extensive improvements and expansion of the bus system.
Jason S.
User ID: 1898874 Sep 6th 1:46 AM
Because of BS like this, I think the best way to go is to create an independent authority set up by the state. Expand and rename the Blue Line Authority to something like the Los Angeles Metro rail construction authority.
Strip Eastside, Expo and ownership of the remaining ROWS from them including Chandler.
I think everyone here would aggree it would be much greater insulated from BS like this.
Roman
User ID: 0227464 Sep 6th 4:02 PM
It really upsets me when peole say that the building of rail projects is considered racist. The current rail system is a benefit to everyone, especially poor people.
Sure we have to keep up the buses, but to pour everything into the bus system is pure stupidity. If we don't work on these rail projects right now, then the children of those BRU members will have it so much worse then bus riders do now when traffic gets worse, and I don't think they even realize it. Those lunatics are completely blind to the future and just throw the word 'racism' around whenever it can be used to their benefit.
Sorry, I just had to vent a little.
Brian Howald
User ID: 0498634 Sep 6th 4:32 PM
Ell of course rail is racist. The Red Line Eastside Extension was going to serve all the rich white people in East L.A., because everyone knows only rich white people live in East L.A. Thank god, those idiots on the MTA Board squandered money and resources and efficiently blamed it all on one poor six-letter word, namely subway. It wasn't the people who screwed up building the subway, but rather the subway itself that is evil!
Me too.
Numan Parada
User ID: 8778463 Sep 6th 6:21 PM
I love your line of ranting! It's too hard to fathom I'm 20 years old now, and by the time I'm 40, we'll all be condemned to a life of harsh traffic, more air pollution, very few alternatives, and a frustrating existence, thanks to our humble friends at the BRU, churning out every possible lie, manipulating every possible truth, spreading their gospel on radio, newspapers, and television, preaching: "The Devil operates in the rails!" If they keep at it, one way or another, they'll surely ruin every possible chance of improving public transportation in one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the entire planet!
These people are what they are: A hole full of poisonous vipers! They've already successfully turned public opinion against rail. Somebody has to act against these people, before everything is lost! Whatever happened to "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"?
Well? Hasn't anyone here seen "Network"?
Same here, and sorry if I was rough, but you can see that we're right; they can do it.
Numan Parada
User ID: 8778463 Sep 6th 6:27 PM
One more thing: These people are still capable of ruining rail (even when taking note that not all monies can be allotted for more buses) thanks to their little shell called the Consent Decree. If someone, anyone, has the guts (and the time and resources) to fight it in court and destroy it, the BRU will wither and die. It's the only way!
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0373644 Sep 6th 10:32 PM
Unfortunately, the MTA has put up a vigorous attempt to fight the consent decree...and failed. As long as it's perceived that poor black and brown workers are being given short shrift because of projects that favor the rich, white privileged population of L.A., we'll never win.
Even Jimmy Hahn has recommended that the MTA not fight the consent decree anymore. One part of me says go all the way to the Supreme Court and stall for time (and screw the idiots!), and one part of me says that it may be more trouble to fight it than it's worth.
What I'd like to see is more county, state and federal politicians within Southern California push the feds to pay up their fair share of transit funds--if they insist on buses, then they should at least help us fund accompanying light rail as well.
Perhaps what we need most of all are advocates who represent the black/brown business community with the guts to make it clear that minorities benefit as much--probably more--with light rail than they do with more buses.
One line I've used in meetings in the Crenshaw District with respect to Expo, for example, goes like this:
"One of the greatest achievements African-Americans realized last century was that they did not have sit at the rear of the bus. For the next century, it's time to realize that African-Americans do not have to be limited to a bus while other ethnicities and neighborhoods get cleaner and more efficient modes of transportation."
Darrell Clarke
User ID: 0164614 Sep 8th 12:10 AM
The next appeal the MTA could make would be to the full 9th Circuit Court. I understand the MTA Board will be deciding next week in closed session whether to do this. Now would be the time to write with your opinion to the MTA Board.
Jason S.
User ID: 0408214 Sep 10th 11:46 AM
Pardon my ignorance here fella's
What exactly is the issue here? I thought the MTA was much in compliance of this decree.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Sep 11th 5:02 AM
The MTA wants to appeal the consent decree. And IMNSHO, it should.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Sep 21st 6:42 PM
The Official MTA Point of View:
MTA to Place Additional Buses into Service While Seeking Clarification from Courts on Extent of Judicial Power to Oversee Consent Decree
The MTA Board voted Sept.10 to comply with a federal appellate court decision to add 248 more buses into service on top of the major bus improvements MTA already has achieved in recent years.
However, the Board also opted to seek further judicial review to clarify what authority the federal court in Los Angeles may have in the future to order MTA to spend even more on bus improvements at the expense of other transportation efforts from paratransit for the disabled to operating new Metro Rail service or easing traffic on crowded streets and freeways.
Buses remain the highest priority for MTA. The agency is spending $1.2 billion or 45 percent of its budget this year on MTA and municipal bus programs, up sharply since the MTA signed a federal court consent decree in October 1996 that called for improved bus service.
MTA has ordered approximately 2,000 new buses and already has taken delivery of more than 1,300 new compressed natural gas coaches.
It has greatly expanded service – more than 1 million more annual bus service hours today than five years ago. It also has started new Metro Rapid bus service and plans a major expansion.
The MTA already has taken delivery of the 248 additional buses the court wants in service. It also has deployed 160 of the buses on the road and will put the remaining 88 buses in service this fall. (note some of the busy lines that will get extra buses)
Still, the MTA faces a juggling act in trying to meet the demands of bus riders and the vast majority of commuters and others who do not use public transportation but drive their own vehicles on Los Angeles County streets and freeways or who bicycle, walk or share a ride.
“The Board is committed to improving bus service for all our riders, but we also have a countywide responsibility to meet, as well, in terms of dealing with surface arterials, with highways and with rail,” said MTA Board Chair John Fasana.
“We need flexibility and the ability to deliberate and set policy.”
MTA CEO Julian Burke echoed Fasana’s statement about the need to get certainty about its Consent Decree obligations.
“The reality is that it is a very difficult opinion because it (gives) such wide, wide discretion to the Special Master who oversees the decree and to the district court as to what is permissible for them to order under the Consent Decree.”
“It seemed to a great majority of the Board that it was wise to get some further clarification,” Burke added, “and in the meantime to comply with (that portion) of Judge Terry Hatter’s order that we put 88 more buses into service.”
88 more buses on crowded routes: The 88 buses will be deployed and bus trips will be added on routes where there have been two or three instances in the last 12 months of buses carrying more passengers than permitted under the Consent Decree.
The requirement for 88 more buses is based on a calculation made by the Special Master.
This means we will have significant additional service downtown and throughout our service area,” Lipsky said, noting that nine buses will be added to the Metro Rapid 720 line on Wilshire Boulevard.
“For our customers, it will mean more frequent service at certain of the more crowded time periods.”
With the 88 buses, the MTA will add service even in areas where the agency has scheduled sufficient capacity, because the Special Master based his service requirements on the load factor measure.
That is one of the issues the agency is seeking to clarify in the legal process.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:01:38 GMT -8
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Nov 9th 4:54 PM
Los Angeles Times: Friday, November 9 2001
Leading MTA Critic Makes U-Turn, Says Enough Buses Are in Service; Transit: The head of the group that forced a court order to increase service stuns officials with praise that calls a truce for now.
By KURT STREETER
TIMES STAFF WRITER
After a bitter, five-year legal fight over bus service to poor communities, a chief advocate for bus riders stunned MTA officials Thursday by saying it appears that enough buses are currently in service to end the battle for now.
Eric Mann, leader of the group whose lawsuit resulted in court orders that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority increase bus service, said for the first time that the agency appeared to be obeying that mandate.
"Our understanding as we look at the data is that you have met the criteria" of the federal agreement, Mann told the MTA board before a crowd of about 200.
"I am saying publicly, 'It looks like you have already' " put enough buses on the road to currently satisfy the agreement.
The agreement and subsequent court rulings require that the MTA fix the problem of over-crowding by adding hundreds of buses in Los Angeles County.
The MTA has continued to fight some requirements, and has been considering taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mann and his group have consistently railed at the MTA, arguing bitterly that the agency was not putting enough buses in service.
But he said Thursday that after a recent review of bus lines with new MTA leadership, he is satisfied the agency is now running about 350 additional buses, reducing overcrowding.
Mann said there are about 2,100 buses in the fleet now, with approximately 400 spares.
MTA officials reacted warmly.
Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, a member of the MTA board, called Mann's comments "an olive branch" and said he was confident the continued legal fight the agency has been threatening would stop.
Since signing the agreement in 1996, the MTA has appealed it four times. The agency has lost at every turn, and the only remaining appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline for that is Jan. 14.
In closed session later Thursday, the MTA board postponed a decision on whether to appeal while it tries to hammer out consensus with Mann's group on other parts of the agreement that could require hundreds more buses.
MTA Chairman John Fasana said the board has new confidence in the progress of meetings between the union and Roger Snoble, the agency's new chief executive.
The meetings are being held to monitor overcrowding on buses and to clarify ambiguous parts of the federal agreement calling for more service. Those sections are open to a fair amount of interpretation, a problem that led to much of the legal tussle after it was signed.
Representatives of the Bus Riders Union involved in the talks said Snoble and his new staff seem to have a better understanding of transit issues than former MTA head Julian Burke, a lawyer who had never worked in the public sector before he took the helm at the MTA in 1997.
Snoble has worked for transit agencies for three decades, most recently heading Dallas' system.
Mann's remarks Thursday contrasted sharply with his previous criticism. Just after the MTA announced at a board meeting in September that it was complying with the order to put the buses in service, Mann railed, "They are liars! The MTA is playing a shell game, a numbers game."
An underlying issue is the MTA's concern that money spent buying and operating hundreds of new buses will lessen the chances the agency can make planned freeway and light rail improvements.
And the Bus Riders Union and some local activists have expressed concern about the precedent that could be set if the Supreme Court takes the case and rules in favor of the MTA.
They worry that such a ruling would weaken existing federal civil rights agreements that have forced changes in everything from education to environmental regulations to police practices.
Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan agreed Thursday that the effects of a Supreme Court victory could be widespread.
It could embolden government agencies in similar civil rights cases across the nation to ask that their agreements also be reviewed.
But Karlan said she didn't think the Supreme Court would take the case because its problems didn't meet the court's level.
Karlan added that the MTA "waived their rights" by voluntarily signing the agreement.
"Nobody held a gun to their head. If they thought their autonomy was being trampled they should have litigated the case to begin with rather than signing this agreement."
Þ--Þ--Þ
Darrell Clarke
User ID: 2093804 Nov 10th 12:21 PM
Eric Mann was on KCRW's "Which Way L.A." yesterday evening, the "Reporter's Notebook" segment at 6:50 p.m. You can separately go directly to this segment on their website <www.kcrw.org> to hear it (more direct link is
<www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=ww&tmplt_type=Program>).
In short, Mann substantially backed away from what was reported in the L.A. Times. He described it as "extending an olive branch" at the request of the Hahn administration. He referred to four parts of the Consent Decree, of which the new buses were part one. He agreed that for now, the MTA had seemed to have fulfilled that part, but that it would fail to have enough buses to meet upcoming standee limits (5 per average bus). So rather business as usual at the BRU.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Nov 11th 5:26 AM
No kidding MTA would fail the 5 standee standard. There's no way it could pass, even if buses were run at 30 second headways.
The only way MTA could get out of this is to run school bus style-no standees allowed.
Golden Gate Transit in San Francisco and Marin and Sonoma counties allows a maximum of 10 standees per bus.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jan 10th 9:50 PM
Congratulations to the Bus Riders Union on what I consider to be yet another well-deserved victory yesterday! Although the majority of the MTA board voted to appeal the federal decree to the U.S. Supreme Court, I don't expect the Court to even hear the case; and, if it doesn't, THAT will be still ANOTHER victory for bus riders! Although I am very much pro-passenger rail, it has been obvious for decades that MTA bus service needs vast improvements, especially with regard to the massive overcrowding problems. Yet, without the advocacy of the Bus Riders Union, I doubt that much relief from the massive overcrowding would have ever come about.
I must say that I am also pleased with Mayor Hahn and his bloc for voting AGAINST the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Jan 11th 4:06 AM
No, John, the MTA should appeal.
The thing is, the BRU hopes that the consent decree can prevent rail from ever being built. That's Eric Mann's real agenda.
There's no way the Consent Decree can ever work. Buses get overcrowded many times due to factors outside the MTA's control, like delays due to traffic congestion or accidents. If a bus is slightly off schedule, then it would be in violation of the Consent Decree.
There's also the danger that the Decree can grow. Judge Hatter and Donald Bliss, the special master, are pro-leftist and want to stick it to MTA. The Consent Decree can be operating policy.
John
User ID: 9510053 Jan 11th [2002] 7:46 AM
I don't know if Eric Mann is anti-rail or not, and I don't think it matters very much one way or the other, since, IF the majority of Southern Californians really WANT rail, we shall have it, considering that the majority always rules. (And, indeed, in some of the very pro-transit areas, we already DO have passenger rail!)
The main point in the federal decree case, in my view, is that, as I said, it has been obvious for DECADES that MTA bus service needs MASSIVE improvements. The massive overcrowding---along with OTHER associated problems---is inexcusable, and, as I said, has BEEN so for DECADES! Thanks to the Bus Riders Union, something is FINALLY being done about it, although, of course, not nearly enough.
Yes, I look upon yesterday's MTA board vote as yet another victory in this struggle, since I don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to even agree to HEAR the MTA's "case." And oh my goodness, how I'm going to cheer if I read in the newspaper one day that, indeed the Supreme Court has declined to even consider the MTA's appeal!
Marty
User ID: 0394114 Jan 11th 3:14 PM
The irony is that the consent degree could jeopardize some of the MTAs plans for more useful bus programs, such as Metro Rapid.
Plus, I have no respect for an organization that throws the word "racism" around the way it does whenever the word can be used to its benefit.
If I were a liberal, I would be embarassed of what the BRU has done because it has fulfilled many negative stereotypes assosciated with liberals (eg, blaming others for their problems and making irrational decisions).
Marty
User ID: 0394114 Jan 11th 3:16 PM
Sorry - I don't mean to start a political debate, I just really dislike the BRU.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Jan 11th 8:57 PM
Tne consent decree skews proper application of bus service. The consent decree allows for no cap on additional services. Yes, we need more service, but the consent decree stops service enhancements in the San Fernando Valley.
Imagine the costs at the L.A. Times, if the paper was required to add a reporter every time the sales department sold a couple more pages of advertising. This out of control consent decree budget issue harms all MTA riders.
Los Angeles Times: Friday, January 11, 2002
EDITORIAL: An Exhausted Battle Goes On
(494 words---Editorial)
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors voted Wednesday to implement a long-contested federal consent decree while simult-aneously continuing to fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This surely sounds like doublespeak, but MTA officials insist there's no contradiction.
At issue, they say, is not the decree's goal--improving bus service--but technical issues about how compliance with the decree should be measured and who can order remedies.
Never mind that a U.S. district judge, a court-appointed special master, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, most recently, a broader 9th Circuit panel have disposed of these questions; the MTA decided to try for an answer it likes better.
It would be more honest for the MTA just to come out and say it hates the consent decree.
Transit officials note pointedly that the decree's restriction on how many passengers are forced to stand over a given period is among the most stringent in the nation.
They chafe at following orders from judges and arbitrators who aren't transportation experts.
But the MTA wouldn't be held to a consent decree had it been doing a good job in the first place.
The Bus Riders Union and the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund filed a civil rights suit in 1994 alleging that the transit agency discriminated against poor and minority riders by neglecting the bus system and pouring money into costly rail projects.
Rather than going to court, the MTA in 1996 voluntarily signed the consent decree. The deal didn't stay out of court for long.
The MTA argues that it has the right to appeal and that its appeals have won a money-saving reduction in the number of new buses it had to buy. But that only proves that the process allows for disagreements.
Where the courts have not disagreed is on the measurement terms set out by the consent decree and on the court's role in solving them, the two points the MTA continues to fight.
Some legal experts doubt that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Still, the Bus Riders Union worries that the court will attempt to undo not just this but other civil rights consent decrees.
The MTA says its appeal is simply about how to interpret a contract, but it is not above using the bus rider group's fears to press it to negotiate on easing the decree.
That new MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble was unable or unwilling to convince the board to drop its stubborn battle is disappointing, given his promising start in meeting with the bus riders group.
He and the board should think of the flip side of the bus riders' fears: If the court declines the case, his arguments are toast and the bus riders won't be cutting the MTA an inch of slack. Not a great way to start.
Þ--Þ--Þ
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:09:06 GMT -8
JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 11th 9:37 PM I was so happy to see that editorial in the L.A. Times today! I thought they would have an editorial criticizing the MTA's latest appeal of the very fine consent decree, and they DID! Way to go, L.A. Times! James FujitaUser ID: 7859123 Jan 11th 9:46 PM Hey Marty, I am a liberal and I am extremely embarassed by the BRU's race baiting. I think part of the problem with understanding the political issues involved here is that light rail isn't necessarily a "left vs. right" issue because what we categorize as "left" and "right" is extremely fragmented for instance, I suppose there are many religious conservatives who couldn't give a flying rat's ass one way or the other (unless Pat Robertson announces that the MTA is aligned with Satan). a typical libertarian response to light rail is: just another example of the big government forcing people who prefer to drive to use a subsidized socialist welfare system the budget cutter thinks: government pork the tax cutter thinks: taxpayer subsidized government pork the environmentalist thinks: great energy efficient transportation alternative, so long as it doesn't run on nuclear or coal power. or run through endangered wetlands. the economic conservative thinks: privatize it and sell the pieces back to the government the BRU socialist thinks: just another example of The Man bamboozling the people the new urbanist thinks: it'll help bring people downtown, as long as the construction isn't too noisy the NIMBY thinks: this'll be great.... somewhere else... the chamber of comerce thinks: big money construction contracts. labor organizations think: big money union jobs. ...and so on... under our two-party democracy, though, most of these people end up as "Democrat" or "Republican" weird, huh? Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 11th 11:09 PM As a conservative, I totally agree with James--the BRU fits into the stereotype bleeding-heart, socialist liberal in a way that causes most Democrats (mostly moderate-liberal) to cringe, fearing hurting the image of the party as a whole. In the same way, most Republicans (moderate-conservative) also cringe at idiotic things said by the Religious Right, because it hurts their own credibility. Rail/mass transit is something that truly transcends left/right nonsense--it's critical for business AND the environment. More importantly, as Darrell Clarke so eleoquently put it as he helped form a group of consensus builders on Expo--it's an issue of our QUALITY OF LIFE. Being stuck on a freeway affects everyone, because folks from both parties use those freeways, and they both suffer. No conservative, Republican or otherwise, would deny that things are better now than 25 years ago with respect to pollution. No liberal, Democrat or otherwise, would deny that improving the Southern California economy isn't critical to our future. In short, the MTA was bloody damn well STUPID to the sign that Consent Decree. In short, the BRU is too myopic in forgetting that THEY will be the greatest beneficiaries if we have rail lines for their buses to connect to. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 12th 12:13 AM How many times, AFTER SIGNING the very fine consent decree, has the MTA appealed it and lost? I do declare, I've lost count! Tee hee!  Bart ReedUser ID: 7733333 Jan 12th 3:23 AM John, I don't think you really understand the impact of the conscent decree. Six years ago, the MTA was run by a bunch of bozo's. When that management left and Julian Burke took over, the MTA started to be professionally run again. Now, new management under Roger Snoble has to sit in meetings with Eric Mann and company. The BRU has no intention to come to an agreement. Just to harm other bus riders. If Vermont gets 5 more buses, that is 5 less buses that won't serve the S.F. Valley. And the consent decree does not represent a balanced budget. Business runs on budgets. And courts don't run government agencies like the MTA that provides services based upon Tax Income to operate buses. More income, means more bus service. That is why citizen's lobby elected representatives. The BRU has never approached elected officials to ask for more operating funding. Why don't you attend the bus riders union meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, January 17th? You can judge for yourself what influences LA transit. Remember, the Bus Riders Union wants to stop the Red Line, the Blue Line and the Green Line and return those routes to bus service. Do you agree? Also, they want to abandon building the Gold Line, the Expo Line, the Valley Busway and Metrolink. See you at the BRU meeting! Þ--Þ--Þ Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 12th 5:26 AM Ken, MTA had to sign the Consent Decree. Not because it was a stupid move, but it was a sacrifice. MTA took it on the chin for other transit agencies. The MTA was the most despised bureaucracy back in 1996, and had it gone to court, MTA would have never won, no matter how strong the case is. There's a big difference between a Consent Decree and a trial loss. If MTA had lost a trial, it would have set precedent, federal precedent. This means that similar accusations can be leveled against other transit agencies. This means people like Wendell Cox can cite BRU v. MTA 1996 and stop rail projects, sanctimoniously in the name of the poor bus riders. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 12th 9:24 AM Ha ha! Bart, that last line was really funny! I have no desire to attend any BRU meetings, given what I perceive to be a generally anti-rail stance on their part! I merely give the BRU the credit that I believe it deserves for bringing about the very fine federal consent decree. The MTA's bus service record speaks for itself. And history cannot be undone. We know that the people of Los Angeles County chose BUSES OVER PASSENGER RAIL a number of decades ago, when they decided to abandon the old Red and Yellow Cars. The majority of people CHOSE buses, even though the contrast between bus service and passenger rail service is indeed nothing short of amazing! And thus we have the MTA record regarding bus service, which can never be undone and which has, quite naturally and perhaps inevitably, brought about the consequences that we continue to behold! And since the majority of residents of Los Angeles County chose to have primarily a BUS transit system, then that bus system ought to be improved upon. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 12th 9:46 AM And so it is that Los Angeles County has only now begun to develop a good passenger rail system to COMPLEMENT the bus system that it chose decades ago. Given the previous choice, it makes perfect sense that the complementary passenger rail system will take decades to be fully developed. And naturally, the more transit-friendly areas have and are receiving passenger rail service first. Those areas which chose low population density, such as West Los Angeles, must naturally wait...and wait...and wait. This is what they CHOSE. No, Bart, of course I do not want the Red Line, or the Blue Line or the Green Line to be undone; and I don't believe that they CAN be, regardless of what the BRU may or may not want in the matter. I see the BRU as playing a very natural---perhaps inevitable---role in improving the bus system that the majority chose. But there is no reason why a good rail system cannot ALSO be installed, albeit long overdue. The majority of residents of Los Angeles County made their pro-bus decision decades ago and now must live with it: since it was chosen, it must be improved, hence the federal decree, etc. But the new---always complementary---rail system may ALSO move forward. Jason S.User ID: 0777594 Jan 12th 1:42 PM Try Money. Thats what this is about isn't it? JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 12th 7:22 PM Hee hee! Money, in my opinion, is one thing that both the government and many businesses waste PLENTY of! So...there should be no problem funding worthwhile projects such as passenger rail through densely populated areas. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 12th 7:41 PM Speaking of money, the Los Angeles Times had a revealing article today regarding the MTA's plan to ask the state for $368,000 to purchase electric scooters and bicycles. Ah hahahahahahahahaha! The MTA reportedly hopes to lease the scooters and bicycles to commuters who live close to crowded transit parking lots! I find this so funny! Imagine riding an electric scooter or bicycle a few blocks to a transit parking lot instead of just walking! JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 13th 9:34 AM Hee hee. Bart, I shall always remember how the Valley NIMBYs blocked east-west passenger rail for themselves and wound up getting a BUSWAY instead! Hahahahahahahahahaha! Well, at least I ASSUME that busway will eventually be built. Bart ReedUser ID: 7733333 Jan 13th 5:41 PM The East-West Busway breaks ground next year. So, I guess, I won't see you at the BRU meeting. We need a few more good people to influence policy at those meetings. Private industry choose buses over rail because government regulators would not provide adequate return on investment to upgrade rail rights of way. The government subsidized rubber tire rights of way, so the transit companies switched from rail to buses to save money. ®-Þ-Þ-Þ-® JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 13th 8:19 PM Thanks for what I consider to be the compliment in your comment above, Bart. But no, I can no more imagine myself at a BRU meeting than at a Republican Party convention! And besides, I rarely speak up in large groups of adults. As for the government's postions relative to rail and buses, that is like everything else: The government does what the majority of citizens WANT it to do. So, if the government fails to support passenger rail in any case, it is because the majority of citizens do not want it to. The majority always rules. Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 14th 3:16 AM John wrote: Then why is George W. Bush president? JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 14th 7:58 AM Bush is president because of the electoral system which the majority has not seen fit to change. Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 9739563 Jan 14th 10:53 AM Our system is designed to balance the will of the States with the will of the People of the US. Dubya, won under our system. Period. It is the same system that allows legislation to pass in the House of Representative, but fail in the Senate. Do you have a problem with that? If so, please cite a large Confederation that has a better system. May I add, there is nothing democratic, by anyone's standards, about the BRU. Adrian. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 14th 8:08 PM Er...Adrian, was your question addressed to me or to Chris? I have to wonder if it was addressed to Chris, since he is the one who wondered why, if the majority rules, Bush is president. In any case, let me say that while I favor direct election instead of the Electoral College, I am no more passionately opposed to the Electoral College system than most Democrats seem to be. As for the BRU, I would suspect that, as is the case with all organizations with which I am familiar, it is also ruled by the majority of its members.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:18:29 GMT -8
Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 15th 4:08 AM I do not want this thread to turn into a whole debate on the Electoral College, but here are my thoughts on why it represents everything America is not. The Electoral College was in place because when the country was founded, the majority of people knew nothing about politics or the land they lived in. This was also the time when voting was only given to the gentry. It has lasted because for most of the time, the electoral and the popular vote both had a majority (or a plurality) and there were no problems. Until 2000. There is nothing inherently fair when an also-ran can win on a technicality...and a Supreme Court appointment, don't forget. There's also a huge myth that the electoral college is fair to smaller states. First off, states don't vote. People do. If states vote, the people should not be allowed to have any say in who the president is. There should instead be an automatic system where we have a winner the Tuesday morning of election day, based on the partisan registration of the voters or the political affiliation of the members of the state legislature. People should not be duped into thinking that their vote matters. Second, the electoral college's votes only require a presidential candidate to win 11 of the largest states to capture the presidency. Is that supposed to be fair to the other 39? Hardly. Third, a president is a representative of a nation as a whole. The American people already have elected officials representing their interests as states. They are senators and representatives. Most of the time, the president has to execute or veto the legislation made by these men and women. Fourth, now that America has matured, people can be reasonably expected to know about their candidates because of advances in public education and mass communications. It's safe for people to choose their own leader. Fifth, there's no point in having a relic in the Constitution, especially one that causes so much turmoil as it did in 2000. The U.S. has been able to abolish slavery and gradually expand the Constitution to finally recognize every one other than a property-owning white male as a human being, so this should be the next step. For the record: I didn't support Gore in the last election, and don't care for him much. I still feel that he got a raw deal. Maybe Clinton will defeat Bush in 2004. (Bill will be the first lady, though.) Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 15th 9:30 AM Sorry, Chris, I'm not sure I can entirely agree with this statement. It really depends on whether Americans view their country as one entity with local powers ceded to local entities (the states) or... Fifty quasi-independent countries (a.k.a., States), originally united as thirteen such quasi-independent countries in 1783 with a Constitution that declares all roles not specified to the federal government as being under the purview of these States. Until we change the Constitution to enhance the power of the federal government (something we can always do with Amendments or a new Constitutional Convention), this is the "United States" of America. Personally, I felt this election was as close to an election as any where both candidates lost--because both candidates failed to get the clear support of the nation's majority. Quite possibly, both candidates were voted as more of a vote AGAINST the other candidate than FOR that particular candidate...and it showed! Clearly,more individual citizens voted for Gore--and just as clearly, more counties and states voted for Bush. Neither really won, and neither really lost. That Bush took power is only because our Constitution defines our country as a collection of individual quasi-nations, not just one big country with local breakdowns of power (like Mexico or France or Peru). Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 0916684 Jan 16th 12:58 AM Thank you Ken. You outlined my feelings for me!! Except that I want these to remain "United States". Adrian. Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 16th 3:47 AM Ken, you know the way the Constitution as is in regards to states, it makes complete sense to totally abandon voting for presidents by the people. As it stands now, the people have no right to vote for a president, and the electors are under no obligation to carry out the will of the people. Voting for the president is unconstitutional. Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 1084044 Jan 16th 6:12 AM Sorry Chris, I think you are havering. It ALWAYS makes sense to vote (and, preferably vote one's concience). Fundamentaly our system is sound. Our costitution has lasted two and one quarter centuries. Look how many France has had in the same period. Mind you, I say 'our', but I won't be a (proud) citizen until sometime in the next twelve months. Adrian. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 16th 7:48 AM I agree that it always makes sense to vote: even in the national elections, because, that way, one at least gets to express one's opinions regarding important issues and people. And even though I feel far more devotion and loyalty to my city and state than I do to the nation, I think the national elections are still important, because the president and Congress of the U.S. control the federal money that is directed to the states. Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 16th 8:09 AM I think it's important to remember just how rare the recent Bush/Gore anomaly is in American history. Overall, electors have uniformly, consistently voted the will of the people--and the numerical majority gets its way. One could argue that in a given State, the votes for the losing candidate are just absolutely thrown away, with all electoral votes to go for the winner only--but that's why we have an ultimate vote of fifty States, not an overwhelming vote of the numerical majority. I think that we really do have the best way of doing things in the world. Again, the Bush/Gore thing was amazingly rare--so rare that no one really knew what the heck to do about it. I comfort myself with the "both candidates lost" phrase to rationalize the weirdness of it all. What I WOULD argue we should do is, regardless of the expense, to modernize our electoral machinery. In addition to both Bush and Gore "losing" the election, I would strongly argue that the Floridian election machinery was another loser, and that the ridiculous amount of local power each election district had made for a mockery of the election process. Florida was a big loser, looking correctly like a joke to the rest of the nation because so many ways of counting and recounting the votes were up to such a wide degree of interpretation. From the outdated and differing ballots between each Floridian district, to the crap that went on in the courts (even the Florida Supreme Court, which gave two confusing, contradicting verdicts on the recount), Florida looked like a circus wholly open to partisan reinterpretation. This from a state that had a Supreme Court and overall Democratic electoral political machinery. Love or hate what the federal Supreme Court did the second time they were handed this issue, they DID try to punt it back to the state of Florida the first time. When the Floridian Supreme Court reversed itself in an apparent attempt to guarantee Gore's victory, the federal Supreme Court moved in to stop the process altogether--or to gain the victory of the man it preferred, depending on how you look at it. Had the decision gone to Congress, you would have seen the same partisan crap. Which is why I blame Florida for allowing this to happen--I hope that all states modernize and clean their processes in the future. Greg M.User ID: 0701364 Jan 17th 12:18 AM Essentially what happened in the election is that Bush and Gore tied the popular vote 49% each. Then what came in to play, as many Americans discovered for the first time, is that there is frequently a rather large margin of error in elections and it becomes extremely difficult to determine precisely who won. When one candidate is clearly out in front the discrepancies are ignored but once things get close everyone began trying to come up with criteria that would favor their candidate. Beyond the politics of it all, there is the larger issue of how to reduce error in future elections. Everyone focused on Florida this time around but in truth this is an ongoing issue with every election in every state; however, usually we simply ignore it, since it "doesn't matter", though this perpuates a system with a lot of holes that eventually do matter. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 17th 7:27 AM One thing I learned from the last presidential election is that I shouldn't bother staying up late to watch election returns on TV. Better to just go to bed at the regular time and read the Los Angeles Times each day to keep up with the latest election returns along with other interesting news. Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 1084044 Jan 18th 6:33 AM >Er...Adrian, was your question addressed to me >or to Chris? Late reply! It was primarily a response to Chris's comments. My view is: the founding fathers new what they were doing. In response to you BRU comments: postings on < la.transportation > seem to indicate the BRU is run based on the views of it's leadership. The rank and file are manipulated to fight for said views. However, I might add I have no personal experience of the BRU. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 18th 7:29 AM I think the BRU's positions reflect the wishes of the majority of its members, since the majority always rules. Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 18th 8:27 AM John, I really wish I could agree with you, but unions in general (especially ones like the BRU or economic unions that have a majority of blue-collar workers with poor levels of education) have a nasty habit of making a few manipulate the facts and take advantage of the "will of the majority". I personally like the idea of a union--but regrettably, too many have devolved into a paradigm of a few learning how to "speak for the will of the majority", with the majority too trusting of how a few run their lives--and may NOT be doing what's in their best interests. Which is why unions have earned such a bad name for themselves lately. It's the same way that the Democratic or Republican PAC's work--just because you belong to a political party, does any independent thinker REALLY think they're well-represented by that party? JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 18th 9:42 PM Ken, I don't think people can be manipulated against their will, except in obvious situations. As for independent thinkers, the majority frequently shuns them. Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 19th 3:48 AM John, you have no idea of how the Bus Riders Union works. The membership have no, I repeat, NO input on the direction of the organization or positions it takes. Ken has it sort of right about the Bus Riders Union about "speaking for the majority," but in actuality, Eric Mann's agenda is the agenda the entire BRU, and all bus riders, have to follow. Mann runs the group through a cadre of organizers who sit on the executive committee. Mann, as executive director, gets to select who sits on the committee. Naturally, they all agree on the same thing. The BRU is part of the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which mostly is involved in Marxist indoctrination. Its hatred of rail is Marxist in that the claims are: rail is supposedly racist against minorities, and rail is labor-unjust because it creates fewer unionized jobs than bus operations. Look at how the BRU stood firmly behind the bus drivers in the last strike, rather than the bus *riders*. Think about this: the strike caused about 25,000 people to lose their jobs, and a couple thousand students to fall behind in school. As for manipulation, you better believe the BRU is manipulative. The membership consists of bus riders, mostly poor and minority, seduced into the organization because they have something to fight against. They have to fight against the white man and the white man's favorite method of transit: rail. The "blame whitey" tactic is why the membership is so high. The BRU is very good at media manipulation as well. The BRU tightly controls its appearance in media. Mann will stonewall reporters if a bad piece comes out, and make sure it always presents itself as the underdog battling against the MTA machine (note that the BRU has over $1 million in its treasury, 10 percent of it going to Mann's salary as executive director). Basically, the BRU will let you see what it wants you to see. Also, the disruptive publicity stunts are well choreographed in advance, and members are color-coordinated by race so that the group can look multiculturally diverse from any camera angle. John, this is not the will of the majority or the grassroots riders staking a victory. This is a wealthy organization run by a charismatic, intelligent demagogue who drives a BMW and used to work at General Motors. Take a look at Kym Richards' web site, www.transit-insider.org, and read the section on the BRU. It'll open the eyes. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 19th 8:31 AM Well, Chris, if the membership allows this scenario, then they must not object to it, otherwise one of two things would happen: the membership would demand a change; or membership levels would drop drastically. I smirked and giggled when I saw an allusion to racism on the BRU's website. Many Latinos and blacks ride Metro Rail. And of course I think the BRU was wrong to support the MTA strike. I wouldn't dream of joining the BRU. I suspect this is true. But then it just goes to show why the majority of the BRU membership would be content with the organization's leadership. If they didn't WANT the BRU to take such positions, then they would either protest and get the postions changed, or leave the organization. Chris, if what you say is true, then it HAS to be the will of the majority of the BRU membership, otherwise they would either rise up and effect changes in the organization, or leave it. Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 19th 8:34 AM John: Chris has it right--which is why the BRU has no respect in my eyes. The trouble with having so many poorly-educated, non-English-speaking individuals in Southern California is that it makes it so darn easy for a few individuals to pull the wool over so many others' eyes. And it's so darn hard to pull that wool off their eyes--the "blame whitey" tactic has just NAILED African-American and Latinos in Southern California in preventing so many hard-working hopeful individuals from achieving the future America has to offer. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 19th 8:46 AM Ken, see my response above to Chris's post. Bart ReedUser ID: 7733333 Jan 19th 9:15 AM John: As a BRU member, I must say, mostly everything you say is incorrect. BRU has 220 members. I was nominated for the "Central Committee" two months ago. It would require me to meet from 6 p.m. to Midnight every Wednesday, for 52 weeks. Since I would never be able to get back to my home in Sylmar as a bus rider, I declined the nomination. John: You have no understanding of "social dynamics" in group situations. Most of the BRU attendees (50 to 100 at each public meeting) have little idea about use of power, organization or the political system. They are used to things being handed to them and let the major thinking be done by others. Many do heavy lifting. As Chris says, BRU is controlled by "group think". When I presented copies of my "Good Service is Your Right" Business Card and Flier to Eric Mann, he objected, because it would identify bus and train operators who were harming transit riders. BRU members and others at the meeting LOVED my consumer actions and swamped me at the end of the meeting with requests for extra copies. Eric decided that complaints should be made to BRU rather then MTA, as he wants to protect transit operators. John: I doubt if I will see you at the BRU meeting today, Saturday, Jan. 19, 2002, but you owe it to yourself to get information first hand, if you want to comment about BRU. It is not a consumer group. And, I must say, Eric Mann is a brilliant and skillful controller. No democracy or common sense is allowed. When BRU attempted to remove me from their meeting about 5 months ago, Eric let others in the committee do the dirty work. Fortunately, ACLU member Sam James and anti-subway advocate John Walsh boldly stepped forward and prevented the illegal ejection of myself. When, transit advocate Dana Gabbard sent the group $10 to receive BRU mailings, (he was tired of picking up BRU literature off of MTA buses and wanted to get the information first hand), the group went crazy and voted to return Dana's money along with a nasty letter of rejection. As the BRU is a non-profit organization, it legally cannot discriminate against anyone. But, in fact it does. Facts or truth are not always relevant. Þ--Þ--Þ
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:29:25 GMT -8
JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 19th 9:47 AM Bart, of course you will not see me at a BRU meeting! Why would I want to attend a meeting of an organization that I perceive to be anti-rail? And no, there is absolutely no need for me to attend meetings of any group in order to comment on the group. I already know that the majority always rules, thus the majority rules in the BRU. That's pretty simple to understand. And although I have little respect for the BRU, I have to admire the role they have played in the federal consent decree proceedings! Without the advocacy of the BRU, perhaps there would never have been a federal consent decree! And so it is that I do not hesitate to acknowledge the good work of the BRU relative to this very important issue! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 20th 4:57 AM John, majority rules in the BRU? Maybe it's like stockholders' rules, where Mann's votes can count for three or four votes to the member's one. Sorry, Mann's hands are on everything. The consent decree is not, I repeat, not anything positive. It addresses crowding the wrong way, seeing lack of service as the problem rather than lack of capacity. The routes affected by the consent decree have the best headways in the entire MTA system. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 20th 9:20 AM Since the majority rules in every organization, Chris, then it surely rules in the BRU. If the BRU membership "rubber stamps" everything that its leader wants, then that HAS to mean that they agree with his direction, otherwise they would either stand up and oppose or even replace him with another director, or leave the organization. Hee hee, Chris. Is this why the special master and the courts have sided against the MTA each time it has appealed the very decree which it signed? And...er....have you ever ridden a northbound Western bus through the Koreatown area during afternoon/evening rush hours? I have, and the overcrowding was nothing short of outrageous! Oh, MY, yes, I can certainly see why the MTA has been defeated at every turn on this issue! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 21st 5:54 AM John wrote: Sorry, John, but you need to stop applying "majority rule" to the BRU. This is not how it works. The BRU is not an elected membership organization. Eric Mann is a paid EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, who runs the LCSC. It's a corporate model. Eric Mann is not accountable to his membership. And Mann will certainly not fire himself from his job. Mann also picks who he wants to be associated with, ensuring that the executive committee rubber stamps his will. As for members leaving the organization, you are giving their intelligence and willpower too much credit. It's like telling a member of a cult to just leave because he or she can never become the head swami. Basically, most of the members are expected to be foot soldiers. If they are trusted enough, then they can move up. John, you have to remember that the BRU doesn't subscribe to mainstream values of group association. The BRU mindset is ends justifying the means and vengeance in what they perceive as justice. This is how the Soviets came into power. Socata, on the other hand, is an elected membership organization. All officeholders are members who are elected by their peers. They receive no remuneration for their positions, save reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. The MTA had its back to the wall. Had it fought the BRU in court, there was no way it would have won. MTA has a solid case, but it is so despised that no one would ever give it a fair trial. Had MTA lost, it would have set national legal precedent, which means it could be used in other cases. Someone like Wendell Cox could pull a BRU stunt by tying up rail in the courts by holding out an aggreived group of bus riders. MTA took it on the chin so that other agencies can still function properly. And do you know why MTA got hammered? Two reasons. Consent decree hearings are much like arbitration proceedings. Unlike trial courts, where there is a chance of looking at the entire scope of a matter, arbitration is strictly about contract interpretation. The other reason is that the BRU was lucky enough to get a leftist judge to hear the case, as well as a leftist special master. The biases of the two gatekeepers of the consent decree incline them to be pro-BRU. Of course I have seen 207. You know very well that I have. But you know what? MTA HAS ADDED RUNS SINCE THE CONSENT DECREE WAS SIGNED. Plus, MTA has expanded 357 service to run mid-day and Saturday. The buses are still crowded. But you cannot claim that the MTA has neglected to add service to Western. It has. MTA can throw 200 buses on Western and it would still be overcrowded. Why? Because judges or consent decrees cannot make buses run on time. You know what traffic is like on Western, right? That's what holding up the buses. If one is just a few minutes off schedule, it will get crowded. The only way to stay within the letter of the law is if MTA banned standees altogether. The buses would only be half as productive, and twice as many passengers would be inconvenienced. It would screw over passengers, but MTA could say, "It's either you not getting on a bus or you being allowed to stand and us breaking the law." What's more important, MTA providing its service or MTA obeying the decree? Take your pick. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 21st 9:37 AM Chris, I think we can all agree that people are not FORCED to join the BRU; correct? Then, those who CHOOSE to join are obviously members because they WANT to be: i.e., because they are in general agreement with what the organization does and with the positions it takes. If the BRU director is unelected, then the members know this and accept it. Otherwise, as I keep saying, they would simply leave the BRU. No one could force them to remain members; correct? And Chris, if the MTA had been doing a good job of trying to prevent overcrowding on the buses, I doubt that there would ever have been a federal consent decree. As for the overcrowding on Lines 207 and 357, have you heard the MTA mention any plans to build light rail along Western? I haven't. So, if they don't want to build light rail on Western, then they should continue to add more buses. Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 0916684 Jan 21st 1:25 PM More BRU related stuff in today's Times: January 21, 2002 Steve Lopez: Points West Sardine Packer Passes for Transit Agency It's 7 in the morning on a school day and a bus is pulling up to Christion Gagen's stop at Wilshire and Western, but he doesn't climb aboard. This one's too crowded. "By the time I pay," says the 15-year-old University High School student, "the seats would be gone." So he waits for another bus, then another, then another, then another, then another, then another. Buses are chugging up every couple of minutes on the 720 Rapid line, but more and more people are waiting to board, and Gagen is caught in this daily game of jockeying and strategizing to get a seat for his cross-town journey. "You got little old ladies hooking in and stepping right in front of you," he says, holding his position and guarding his left flank. "I hope people let me do the same thing when I get old." It could be worse. A bus on the 357 line has busted down at the peak of rush hour and sits like a dying rhino on Western Avenue. Gagen finally boards the seventh bus, which has plenty of seats. But before we travel a mile west, between 10 and 15 people are standing. "It's the same when I come home," Gagen says. "After football practice, you want a seat. But sometimes you'll have as many people standing up as there are sitting down." The solution is apparent, it seems, to everyone except the people running the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Two weeks ago, in a decision that reopens the question of whether the "M" in MTA stands for Misguided, or perhaps Mismanaged, the board voted to plow ahead with a years-long, losing battle against a decree that would put more buses on the street. Even if you buy the MTA's argument against more buses, there's a problem here. The decree did not sail down out of the sky one day. The MTA helped write it in response to charges that the agency was packing low-income and minority riders into broken-down cattle coaches while spending like thieves--$300 million a mile--on rail lines. The MTA, practicing an indecipherable form of math, has its own peculiar ideas about how many buses it ought to buy and how many riders ought to be standing up as a matter of routine. The problem is that everyone but Judge Judy has looked at the decree, and not one person has seen it the MTA's way. A federal judge sided with bus riders. A special master sided with bus riders. A panel of federal judges sided with bus riders. A second panel of federal judges sided with bus riders. To even the most casual observer, a pattern seems to have developed. And yet, undiscouraged by four straight whiffs and mounting legal costs, the MTA board has voted to appeal to the highest court in all the land. John Fasana, the board chair, and Roger Snoble, the agency chief, told me they need clarification on how to determine compliance with the decree. Pay attention then, boys, and let's see if this helps clear it up: You lost. You lost. You lost. And you lost again. Buy more buses. "The Supreme Court justices are very busy people," says Eric Mann, founder of the Bus Riders Union. "If you want more clarification, call your psychiatrist." MTA bosses are also carping and moaning about not getting credit for the improvements they've made. So here's some credit: Yes, the MTA has bought more buses and service seems to be better. The Rapid line runs on short intervals and serves as a model for what bus service can be, and there's a terrific bus-traffic supervisor at Wilshire and Western who should be running the entire agency. Derick Mahome knows half the riders by name, and works up a sweat helping them make connections as they come up from the train station or other bus lines. But the bus division has 90% of MTA's riders and only half its budget. We happen to be living in a county with 8 million cars, and the MTA just doesn't know whether it makes sense to add 130 buses to a fleet of about 2,000. One hundred thirty buses. That's what the MTA is quibbling over in a region that violated clean air standards 100 times in 2001. L.A. happens to be a place, I might add, that's laid out in such a way that buses make more sense than rail. And then Fasana and Snoble have the nerve to argue that ridership on all forms of public transportation is just not increasing enough to justify big outlays. Well, first of all, boys, I don't recall any penny-pinching when MTA royalty erected that half-billion-dollar palace in a city with downtown buildings that sit vacant. And secondly, let me take a stab at just a few reasons ridership isn't on the rise: * With the average bus ride between 60 and 90 minutes, no one wants to have to stand up. So only those who have no choice--such as students like Christion Gagen, or the housekeepers who commute to the Westside homes of MTA lawyers and managers--are willing to go by bus. * The escalator at the south end of the Red Line Civic Center station is broken more often than it's fixed, with stairs dismantled and stacked against the wall like Rose Parade bleachers. Can anybody at the MTA find the right screwdriver and fix this darn thing once and for all? * You're driving past Sunset and Figueroa during rush hour, and you see armies of people on the street with looks of dread. What can it be? Did they reinstitute the draft? No. They're waiting to horseshoe themselves onto the next overcrowded bus. They could not possibly look more miserable, and nothing in this picture tells you to park the car tomorrow and go MTA, no matter how horrific traffic is. We need more buses, more trains, more bike lanes, and more good reasons to get more people out of their cars. What we need most of all are leaders willing to reimagine the metropolis, not reexamine the decree. Buy the buses already. * Steve Lopez writes Monday, Wednesday and Friday. He can be reached at steve.lopez@latimes.com Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times ". --P-- I'll leave it to others to comment. Later Adrian. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 21st 2:23 PM Wow! Adrian, thank you so very much for sharing Steve Lopez's EXCELLENT column on the MTA and the EXTREME amount of overcrowding that it allows on its buses, etc.! I just finished reading this OUTSTANDING example of journalism at its best in the newspaper and was on my way to recommend it here! Boy, do John Fasana and Roger Snoble REALLY not understand why public transit ridership is not rising greatly in Los Angeles?! Is it even POSSIBLE that anyone would not understand why?!!!! After reading this article by Steve Lopez, I have to say that, in my opinion, he is one of the VERY FINEST writers on the Los Angeles Times' staff! We need many more journalists of his caliber! JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 21st 3:49 PM I have to admire Wendell Cox for pointing out that American passenger rail RARELY helps relieve traffic congestion more than minimally. This is something of great importance that I think people need to know. John User ID: 9510053 Jan 21st 4:17 PM Ooops! I forgot to indicate above that this quote was from Chris. By the way, Chris, did you read Steve Lopez's fantastic column in today's Los Angeles Times?! I consider it to be one of the best newspaper articles that I have EVER read! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 22nd 4:55 AM Steve Lopez, like any other journalist or columnist that writes about transit in L.A., has it completely wrong. The MTA has bought the buses, even more than the decree required. The buses aren't getting any less crowded. This is because crowding occurs due to congestion and other factors beyond MTA's control. MTA could run buses at 10-second intervals and they would still be crowded. The problem is capacity. MTA has to expand seats, either by expanding rail service or buying larger buses. The former is too expensive and the latter is illegal thanks to the AQMD. Also, the BRU believes the consent decree is a Marxist mandate, and artics are bad because they create fewer driving jobs. By the way, MTA cannot just buy buses. It's not like going to a dealer and driving the buses off the lot. They take two years to deliver from the time they are purchased. Let's not also forget that, say with 130 buses, it takes about 200 drivers to operate them. Many of the runs are a combination of full and split shifts, and you have to spread these across weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Also, 130 buses would require MTA to acquire land for and build a whole new division. These can't just be placed anywhere for logistical reasons. Neighbors would also object to having a yard because of noise and fire concerns. Now, for BRU and freedom of association: I don't see what is so great about joining the BRU to become sheep. That's exactly how the members are treated. Too stupid and useless on their own, so they must be herded and prodded because they are no good for anything else. Many of the members are poor and have little education, so they probably don't even know about freedom of association and that they have the power to leave and affect change that way. You and I may know, but the members don't. What's worse is that the membership is taught to resist this libertarian notion of freedom of association, because they are elitist values. Elitist=white=racist=bad=evil. They also operate by the Soviet principle of ends justifying the means. The BRU will lie but rationalizes their falsities by saying there's a greater truth in their agenda despite the lie. And John, it's obvious that you are a free-thinker. You support both the Red Line and the BRU. However, the BRU won't let you. You cannot support the group's agenda and rail at the same time. So what is your rationale for supporting the Red Line when the organization you also support believes that it was the cause of racism? Inquiring minds want to know. Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 1084044 Jan 22nd 6:26 AM Absolutely!! JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 22nd 6:35 AM Ha ha, Chris! Even if it wanted to, the BRU couldn't force me to take any position that I don't WISH to take (any more than it could force anyone else to). Please recall that I said I would never even DREAM of joining an organization like the BRU. As you correctly noted, I am a free thinker! And as I have stated previously, I see no acceptable reason why Los Angeles cannot have BOTH bus AND passenger rail service! Goodness, even the MTA thinks it can! However, due to the history of Los Angeles relative to public transit, it IS obvious that bus service HAS to take precedence, with passenger rail being only complementary to it, for at least two or three more decades, I would say. After that time, it would make sense for rail to take precedence and BUS service to become complementary, if that's what the majority wants. We CANNOT undo what has been done. That just wouldn't make sense. And, back to the consent decree, if what you seem to be saying is true: that the MTA has done all it can to buy and put in place new buses, etc., then why does it keep losing all its appeals of the federal consent decree? Do you really think its just because of "leftist" judges? Hee hee! I don't. No, the MTA record speaks for itself, Chris. And this record, as I see it, is why its appeals have been rejected over and over and over again. I don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to even CONSIDER its FINAL appeal, nor should it. Jason S.User ID: 8402073 Jan 22nd 3:09 PM The article says that lower courts rulled against the MTA and ergo it should not go the Supreme Court. I think this is a bunch of BS. The MTA has a perfect right to take this as far as they see fit. I remind the readers of this board that if some things had not been taken all the way to the supreme court persons of color would still be relegated to the back of the bus, have unequal voting facilities and schools. In fact there has been hundreds of wonderful things which lower courts had rulled against but when it reached the level of the Supreme Court things were set right. Check this link out: supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htmBelow is taken from the MTA's website on the subject www.mta.net/press/pressroom/viewpoint/mta_010902.htm"But as it is currently interpreted, the Consent Decree has become a roadblock that threatens our ability to provide meaningful solutions to traffic problems, and chokes off transportation improvements for all of the residents of Los Angeles County, including bus riders. Several weeks ago the Board postponed its decision on this issue and directed the MTA to reach a reasonable solution to this dispute. However, over the past eight weeks of meetings in which our CEO has been personally involved, the plaintiffs have refused to respond to our repeated attempts to settle the dispute. The MTA Board feels it is a misuse of taxpayer money for the courts to order the MTA to keep adding buses on lines where there¡¯s already plenty of service scheduled, at the expense of areas that are underserved by buses, or which could be better served by other transit tools. " Jason Jason S.User ID: 8402073 Jan 22nd 4:14 PM I took a look at the opinion issued by the court of appeals. While the majority opinion seems to deal alot with the contractural aspects of the consent decree the dissenting opinion seems to go much further. I would recommend everyone read the discenting opinion as well. It takes a lot into consideration and one can more easilly see why the MTA is taking this all the way. The full text is on the Bru's website: www.thestrategycenter.org/Decree/9th_Circuit_ruling_for_BRU_8-31-01.pdfJohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 22nd 10:52 PM Well, today there was another good article about the MTA in the Los Angeles Times! This time the report pertained to the paucity of information regarding MTA routes and schedules posted at bus stops around the city! And the BRU played a leading role in bringing this matter to the public's attention! Kudos, BRU and Los Angeles Times, for yet ANOTHER public service well done! Bart ReedUser ID: 7733333 Jan 23rd 2:12 PM John, you couldn't be more wrong. The article on MTA information developed as a matter of discussion with L.A. Times reporter Caitlin Liu and myself. She could not believe how hard MTA makes it for customers to get information. So, she started asking questions. MTA has no policy to improve public information as the reporter uncovered. It will be a matter of public pressure addressed to the MTA Directors to change staff policy on information at bus stops. I suggest you write the board to express your concerns. For the record, the bus information story was originally two articles. Late, just before publication, the editors told the writer to combine the main and sidebar stories into one longer piece. Þ--Þ--Þ JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 24th 12:09 AM I very much enjoyed reading the comments by the BRU representative in the L.A. Times article. Again, kudos to the BRU and the Los Angeles Times for a job well done! JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 26th 11:28 PM Every time I have to wait an excessive amount of time for an MTA bus to come by, I am especially appreciative of the BRU's good work! Tonight, Mike and I waited 29 minutes during the early evening for a Sunset Blvd. bus to happen along....THANK YOU, BRU, for standing up for bus riders' rights!
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:38:11 GMT -8
James FujitaUser ID: 7859123 Jan 27th 12:01 PM Thank You to the BRU for making you wait an excessive amount of time? JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 27th 12:22 PM Er...no. Thank you to the BRU for advocating for more buses and better bus service! Ken AlpernUser ID: 0923684 Jan 27th 11:30 PM Perhaps your problem, John, is that you (like so many other well-meaning individuals throughout L.A. County) seem to feel that the BRU is the only one advocating for busriders' rights? By preventing the MTA from pursuing a more balanced approach of rail and buses is that on heavy corridors (such as Wilshire Corridor), even the successful Metro Rapid buses reach capacity to quickly to really resolve the busriders' problems. When more rail is placed in L.A. County--such as when the Red Line was connected to the Valley--it frees up so many more buses to the areas that the MTA already KNOWS is underserved. By throwing up the concept of more buses (quite at the expense of rail, mind you) ONLY, the BRU prevents the successful transportation problems of L.A. County that require rail AND buses. Contrary to what you might know about the MTA, the new leadership has already decided to cooperate with municipal bus operators instead of competing with them--and with a single countywide rail pass to boot! It's important to understand that the new MTA leadership hired by the Board is quite different from the old leadership. In other words, John, the MTA Board GOT IT--their service stunk, and they were correctly perceived as unresponsive to taxpayer and voter needs. What HASN'T changed, unfortunately, is the approach of the BRU which at this time serves much more the personal ambitions of Eric Mann than the true needs of busriders... JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 28th 6:45 AM Ken, in my opinion, it is inexcusable that people should have to wait 29 minutes for a bus to come by along a major street such as Sunset Blvd.! And such poor service is not the fault of the BRU; I think we all know which entity bears the blame. Nor is this poor service anything NEW; it's been going on for DECADES! You see, I think that if this sort of poor quality hadn't been so widespread for so long, there probably never would have been a federal consent decree. Without such a record, a group like the BRU wouldn't have had much credibility. But...the record is there; has been there for decades; was there for the BRU to point to and for the special master, the courts, the press, and the public in general to see. Thus the federal consent decree. Yes, we need both bus and rail service, as I have said many times. Yes, we can HAVE both, if the majority wants it this way. But the majority decided in the early 1960s to institute a public transit service based primarily on BUSES. They made a bad decision, in my opinion, but that's the (unsurprising) decision they made; and so the bus service should be GOOD! It hasn't been; thus the inevitable rise of a group like the BRU; thus the MTA's record for all to see; thus the federal consent decree! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 29th 2:45 AM John, the BRU doesn't care about better bus service, and the consent decree amounts to extortion. In 1996, had MTA went to court, it would have lost and the case would have set legal precedent. The BRU, and by extension, the LCSC, is looking to force a Marxist agenda on the people by any means necessary (ends justify the means). The BRU only wants to dismantle current and future rail projects, since this is what Eric Mann wants. Strange that he was at General Motors before he founded the BRU. You know what General Motors did in the mid-20th century. The consent decree will not improve bus service. These "underserved" lines are mostly MTA's busiest; these already have the most service, better headways than 99% of all agencies in the country. Go ahead. Compare schedules. And, how will the Consent Decree make buses faster or run on time? It won't. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 29th 11:32 PM Chris, one thing we most CERTAINLY don't have to worry about is a Marxist agenda being forced upon us, UNLESS that is what the majority WANTS! Isn't that neat? And the reason for it is, of course, that the majority always rules! Now, about the federal consent decree, as I and others keep saying, the MTA record speaks for itself. Had it not been for that record, there probably would never have been a federal consent decree! Now, I LIKE the justice in that! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 30th 4:33 AM John wrote: You know how America works. Nothing to the left of mainstream liberalism ever went over with the populace. As for the consent decree, it's a majority of one. It's Eric Mann's decree. He lets no one but himself control what's in the decree, and he has a leftie judge back it up. The consent decree is a judicial fiat that is irrespective to the wishes of any group. I am saying that it will not work. Essentially saying that getting a seat on a bus is a civil right is completely unreasonable, but Eric Mann's intention is for the consent decree to add service by crippling rail. He only wants to dismantle rail. Remember, the MAJORITY of taxpayers voted for two sales tax measures that mandate rail construction. Eric Mann, since the consent decree is what he wants, wants to undo it all by himself. As long as you live by this mantra, you should be opposed to the BRU. I wonder what you'd be like in Germany during the 1930s and 40s. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 30th 6:36 AM Chris Ledermuller wrote: One person acting alone could no more undo rail construction than he could bring about a federal consent decree all by himself. I don't think there is ANY chance that the Blue, Green, or Red Lines will be taken out of operation. Nor do I expect that the Eastside Blue Line extension or the Pasadena Gold Line will be stopped. We will see how the Expo Line proceeds, but I think it is only a matter of time before it, too, is constructed. We will also see what the U.S. Supreme Court itself thinks about the federal consent decree (the MTA's record speaking for itself, etc.). Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Jan 31st 5:12 AM John wrote: The Supreme Court is a toss-up. The Rehnquist court has been one of the most ideologically driven courts in U.S. history. MTA's advantage is that it is a right-wing court, and if the high court got wind of the BRU's activities, it would rule against them. Since they are also conservatives, they might just make the BRU's nightmare true and use the consent decree to roll back civil rights laws (make them a states' rights matter). On the other hand, the high court tends to rule against government in matters of private cases. Since MTA provides a service that primarily serves the poor and minorities (mostly on the left), the consent decree now becomes a legal precedent. MTA crosses the Rubicon on this one. The consent decree can now be used to stop rail projects nationwide. It's not going to be by BRU. It will be by Wendell Cox and anti-transit advocates. (Say what you may about Cox, but conservative Paul Weyrich provides the best counterattack to Cox's data and shows his statistical abuses.) Now, on the facts alone, the BRU asserts that the consent decree is one based on racial discrimination. The BRU has to prove somehow that MTA deliberately discriminated against blacks and Latinos by building rail lines. The BRU faces an uphill battle because: *MTA has a mandate to build rail per Propositions A and C. *MTA can show that most rail riders are minorities and low-income passengers. *MTA can show system maps and schedules to show that bus service was not cut so much as to force more people onto rail and make bus trips impossible. *MTA can say that there are no barriers for minorities to use the bus service. *MTA can easily demonstrate that rail lines serve communities of color and low-income areas through census tract data. The BRU only got the consent decree because it forced MTA against the wall. MTA ruined its reputation within the community and could never win in court no matter how solid the case it had. By choosing a consent decree, the case would not set precent, MTA would not admit guilt and it could still get a chance to improve bus service. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 31st 7:47 AM Chris, I think it is very true that rail does not discriminate against minorities. And yes, bus service is improving, at least within the City of Los Angeles (although it still leaves a lot to be desired). So, it will be very interesting to see whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear the MTA's latest appeal of the federal consent decree. I don't think it will hear it, but we'll see. Kymberleigh RichardsUser ID: 0067194 Feb 3rd 8:24 PM John, I have no idea who you are, but it is painfully obvious that you belong to the "don't confuse me with the facts" mentality. You have been presented with facts over and over and over again in this thread and you still persist in choosing the BRU's side of the issue. Can I recommend a good deprogrammer? You've obviously been brainwashed. RayUser ID: 0471064 Mar 18th 8:24 PM Here ya go fellas! Statement by MTA Board Chairman John Fasana Re: Bus Consent Decree March 18, 2002 MTA is disappointed that the United States Supreme Court has opted not to review the federal Consent Decree to improve Metro Bus service in Los Angeles County. While underscoring that MTA will continue to comply with the Consent Decree, the MTA Board felt it was important for the court to clarify how compliance should be measured. Equally important was to define what authority the federal court and the special master, who oversees compliance, has in deciding how MTA should comply if violations occur. MTA remains optimistic that differences in tracking violations and measuring compliance of the Consent Decree can be resolved. MTA is committed to complying with the decree and will continue our efforts to improve the Metro Bus system. In the past five years MTA has purchased and taken delivery of nearly 2,000 new compressed natural gas buses. Many of these were used to replace aging diesel buses but the agency has added almost 500 peak hour buses into service to reduce overcrowding and to expand service. The MTA is expanding its popular Metro Rapid Bus lines, is planning new busways, and, starting this summer, will decentralize bus operations to be more responsive to local communities as part of an ongoing effort to improve Metro Bus service. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Mar 18th 10:00 PM I would have been more than a little bit surprised had the U.S. Supreme Court opted to hear the MTA's appeal. I didn't for one minute expect that they would hear it. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Mar 29th 10:07 AM I see (Los Angeles Times, March 29) that the MTA has spent around $1 million appealing the federal consent decree: an appeals process which, unsurprisingly, the MTA lost, with the United States Supreme Court not even bothering to hear the appeal. (Tee hee! Oh! Tee hee hee!) But since the MTA spent around ONE MILLION DOLLARS on an appeals process which, it seemed to me, was doomed to failure from the beginning, I should think that many people will be duly skeptical if the MTA claims that it lacks the funding to make needed improvements in the future. Kudos to County Supervisor and MTA Board member Gloria Molina for questioning why the MTA has not posted bus schedules and routes at more bus stops! Clearly, if New York City can post such important information at approximately 85% of its bus stops, then Los Angeles could manage to post bus schedules and routes at most of ITS bus stops. I hope the BRU will keep urging the MTA to buy many more buses: at least 500 more. I think it's disgusting that there are still so many more automobiles on the streets than buses! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 1244314 Mar 30th 7:20 AM John wrote: What in the hell for? No more people are going to ride it, and it won't even reduce overcrowding. Are you a Marxist like Mann? Remember, Mann is a demagogue who only wants to see rail dismantled. He is single-handedly responsible for running the BRU. The people in the yellow shirts are just taking marching orders. I have given several reasons why simply adding more buses won't help matters. What are your reasons that they'll improve things? I know I'm just going to aggravate myself because you'll give a sheeplike answer, but I'm just curious. JohnUser ID: 9510053 Apr 4th 12:58 PM One continues to see reasons why the MTA lost ALL of its appeals of the federal consent decree that it signed. I think I saw one Tuesday. Yes, I was returning home around noon from North Hollywood on a Red Line train. When we arrived at the Universal City station, the operator asked the passengers to listen to an important announcement. He said that there had been a "train accident" at the Hollywood/Highland station, therefore the train would not continue! So, I had to continue to Hollywood by bus. Now, this would not have been so bad, except that I and the seemingly 60 or so other people at the bus stop had to wait FIFTY MINUTES for a bus to arrive, and when it DID arrive, the bus became extremely crowded. The bus driver asked people more than once to move back, AND announced that the bus would not be able to leave the stop until people DID move back! I find such frequent requests and announcements by bus drivers to be insulting, in cases where the buses are already heavily crowded. I said that two buses should have been sent out, and I wonder why they were not, given that so many people were stranded due to the "train accident." (I read in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that a 20-year-old man had laid down on the train tracks at Hollywood/Highland, allowing a Red Line train to run over him. The Times said that it appeared to be a suicide.) But the fact that it took a bus 50 minutes to reach the stop where we stranded passengers were waiting on Ventura Blvd., and that there was extreme overcrowding on the bus is just one more indication to me of WHY the MTA deserved to lose all of the appeals of the federal consent decree that it signed. From the outset of the MTA's final appeal---the one to the U.S. Supreme Court---I said that I doubted the Court would even hear the appeal; and of course I was right. It is so easy to see WHY I was right. Ken AlpernUser ID: 0373644 Apr 4th 7:03 PM John--not certain if this conservative Supreme Court chose to ignore the appeal because of service-related issues. However, your suggestion that better service, better bus drivers and more managerial expertise is needed within the MTA is something we all agree with. Unfortunately, the unholy alliance between the BRU and the bus drivers' union is about the worst thing that bus riders could have happen to them. What we need is more money to hire the best people to operate and manage bus service as it coordinates with rail--and we need the ability to fire poorly-performing drivers who undermine the system. I'm sure you'd agree that the idea of pursuing more buses solely to empower bus drivers is one that would serve virtually no one. Daniel SchwartzUser ID: 9286933 Apr 4th 10:16 PM A completely different personal experience: One Saturday in August, there was a problem at the Universal City Station. They closed the gates at the NoHo station and had many attendants informing would-be rail passengers of the closure. They then directed us to a number of waiting buses which shuttled us directly to Hollywood/Vine (which is easier to access fromthe 101 than Highland). The non-stop bus ride took almost 20 minutes, but was very well executed. I've also been on a northbound train that was stopped at Hollywood/Highland due to police activity. Though this was after 10pm, I estimate that over 200 people proceeded to wait at tbe corner for the buses to come. Needless to say, the buses were crowed as they headed into the Valley, but I take that as an example of the merits of rail capacity! John said: Welcome to transit in the Valley. . . I would imagine so, if 60 people boarded at one stop. How can you fault a bus driver for refusing to operate his vehicle in an unsafe manner??
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:44:01 GMT -8
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 4th 11:05 PM
Why would a bus driver repeatedly ask people to move back when a bus is clearly already excessively crowded?
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Apr 5th 2:36 AM
John, now tell me how your bus experience is evidence that MTA hasn't fulfilled its end of the consent decree.
You haven't told us why exactly was the bus late. Was it, like the BRU asserts, just MTA being its racist self? Or do you think there could have been something else to hold it up?
If you're still on this kick that Judge Hatter or Special Master Bliss have a document that can force MTA to operate better, problem free, I suggest you cut back on whatever substance you are abusing.
You have to convince me that MTA maliciously or negligently operated the bus like that.
Daniel Schwartz
User ID: 1439244 Apr 5th 4:35 AM
John said:
Then he should have asked people to get off of the bus or not let them on to begin with. I believe a federal statute prohibits bus drivers from operating their vehicles with any passenger in front of the "white line."
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this point as a valid argument against the MTA's bus service and hardly find it "insulting."
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 5th 8:29 AM
Happily, all of the judges who ruled on the MTA's appeals of the federal consent decree that it signed, the special master, et al. apparently DO find excessive overcrowding to be "a valid argument against the MTA's bus service." Likewise, I'm confident that I'm not alone in finding it insulting when bus drivers repeatedly request that people move back on buses that clearly are already excessively crowded.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Apr 6th 5:42 AM
John wrote:
And they have encyclopedic knowledge of transit operations, right?
The judges are only contributing to the problem. They believe that MTA must simply add buses and congestion vanishes. It hasn't and it won't.
MTA staff have transit operations knowledge, not the judges. If the judges continue, they'll wreck the system through rulings. Then who's helped?
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Apr 6th 7:34 AM
I don't work for MTA. But I have special knowledge
of transit operations and overcrowding.
A significant amount of time, crowding is due to lack of operator skill and lack of proper training
of bus riders.
I have completed numerous Ride Checks over the past year. What they document is heavy loads and heavy ridership turnover. With an actual Ride Check, it is easy to document that Load Factor rules are being met. MTA has lacked the Skill Set to document its own Truth.
The Ride Checks document significant ride Churn. Riders may stand for a few minutes, but sit down as others leave the bus. A new group enters and stands. Standing loads generally turn over completely within 2 to 10 minutes. MTA Point Checks can never document this TRUTH. But Ride Checks show how the BRU is misapplying the Consent Decree.
As the new Sector General Managers take control of bus operations, they are getting new teams of Transit Operations Supervisors trained.
Finally MTA Bus Operators will have On-the-Street Supervision. Just like peer Bus Operations around the country.
There are simple psychological methods to move boardings to the rear of the bus. Stanchions can be painted Red in the Front Third of the Bus.
Right now, stanchions are painted Yellow in the Center of the new NABI Coaches. And the Rear of the Bus Stanchions can be painted Green. The same color scheme with the Floor Mats.
Operators and Customers can be trained that "you must stand or sit in the Green Section of the Bus." "You must move back from the Red Section of the Bus."
Operators can be trained to make announcements to move folks to the proper color coded section.
Have you ever been to the Airport? Some motorists understand the difference between the White Zone and the Red Zone. Those who don't get ticketed!
People ALWAYS move back when you tell them, "We need your help to get you to work on time, to get you home to your family to eat and see your kids." Bus customers will move when they can understand that the ride is teamwork with the operator.
I have used this system and it always works.
When training with this system, sometimes fast food coupons are used to persuade Customers to exit via the Rear Door. You don't get the coupon that has a real fast food value... a free drink, food item or meal when Exiting the Front Door.
Customers get use to the Concept of a Reward and the value of moving the bus faster to be on time to work and to get home to relax with the family, while exiting via the Rear Door.
As you can see on the Special Master Don Bliss post, I will be able to explain transit operations
from a psychological / rider point of view.
Special Master Bliss can order MTA to purchase articulated coaches. The MTA can seek temporary exemption from the laws preventing the Agency from purchasing non-CNG Low Floor Articulated Buses, but the MTA has just returned from France.
On Friday, April 19, 2002 at 11:30 AM, the MTA Advanced Transit Vehicle Consortium will receive oral briefing on evaluation of Advanced Transit Vehicles for Bus Rapid Transit as used in France.
The buses work and meet some U.S. standards. There
are other issues to work with such as Buy American
standards.
On the issue of capacity, each 100 Articulated Buses mean an increased ability to move 2,500 more riders at any one time.
In San Francisco, the 38 Geary Line, which uses Articulated Electric Vehicles, boards passholders through the two rear doors, while cash Customers enter the front door. This system moves the bus a lot faster. This is a simple operational change that would work quite well in our crowded high capacity corridors.
The Consent Decree was poorly written. I can give Don Bliss the information he needs to order the MTA to operate cost effectively with the resources
of the Agency properly deployed with sorely needed
training and supervision being added.
The bean counters and the cost cutters destroyed Transit Operations over the past 10 years. The Rapid Bus system works due to Field Supervisors running the Operations.
On dense lines, actual supervision can redeploy the fleet to improve productivity that moves thousands more customers per hour.
You have an opportunity to get me to see Don Bliss in Washington, DC. Your financial donation can make a Sea Change in Transit in Los Angeles.
Read the Don Bliss post and get me to DC.
Thanks!
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 6th 8:53 AM
Bart Reed wrote:
Makes sense. As a passholder, I don't enjoy being stuck so many times behind all the people who board the buses first and then hold everyone up by fumbling around for change, trying to get dollar bills to go in the farebox, etc. It's especially irritating when bus drivers direct passholders to proceed yet the way is effectively blocked by the people fumbling for change, etc.
And if San Francisco can use electric, articulated buses, then it stands to reason that Los Angeles could, too.
I wonder why the MTA hasn't been using these clean-running, articulated buses that you describe, Bart.
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 6th 9:08 AM
It sure would be nice if the Special Master would direct the MTA to order at least 500 new buses, many of which would be the electric, articulated ones that Bart said are used on the 38 Geary Line in San Francisco!
I think the MTA has already made much improvement in its bus service, but Bart's comment above shows that some important, very helpful steps can still be taken to make L.A.'s bus system even better!
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 8:52:50 GMT -8
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Apr 7th 5:50 AM
John wrote:
The RTD actually had an idea of operating electric trolleybuses. The Franklin White regime killed that idea in the early 1990s.
Sad, too. I would have liked ETBs. Cleaner than CNG. Also, while CNG buses are terribly loud, ETBs are silent. The overhead wires (we already have them all over the place in L.A.) are a small price to pay for these buses. Also, they are really fast and are exceptional hill-climbers. One of the reasons why ETBs are widely used in San Francisco, Seattle and Vancouver is because of the hilly terrain. The buses don't struggle on inclines like motor buses.
As for starting them in L.A., there are still blight issues that must be hammered out with cities, and MTA would have to float a purchase order with Edison or DWP.
Roger Rudick
User ID: 0443584 Apr 7th 9:00 PM
I wonder if the Valley folks couldn't push to have the Chandler busway electrified? It could still handle through buses that are diesel, but it would at least reduce the noise and help prepare it for possible future LRT conversion. Of course, the NIMBYs would probably scream about unsightly wires.
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 7th 9:46 PM
Yes, Roger, the Valley majority already nixed light rail and subway, so I doubt that they'd want wires there REMINDING them of light rail.
Jerard
User ID: 0011434 Apr 7th 10:12 PM
The Trolleybuses for the Chadler Busway or use them for the Rapidbuses sounds like a great idea.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Mar 29th [2003] 4:59 PM
This is the result of Special Master Donald Bliss visiting Los Angeles Oct. 2002. In early Dec. 2002, Bliss issued an 80 page order giving MTA and BRU a formula on what is overcrowding and how to address it.
Bliss finally has understood the MTA needs. He told MTA to figure out what it needed to do and told them to do it with the June 22, 2003 Systemwide Shakeup.
MTA is moving ahead with plans set forth last Oct.
At this point I believe the BRU issues will be mainly solved. MTA has 200 Articulated 60' - 60 seat low floor CNG buses on order. They can substitute these buses on the heavy use routes and gain 4,000 seat capacity during rush hours.
This story merely reflects and reports upon MTA activity over the last 6 months. The good news: many S.F. Valley lines will get more service.
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Thursday, March 20, 2003
MTA Told to Add 125 Buses
By Kurt Streeter
Times Staff Writer
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority was ordered Wednesday to put an extra 125 buses into daily rush-hour service by a federal mediator monitoring the transit agency.
Mediator Donald T. Bliss, a Washington lawyer overseeing a federal decree requiring the MTA to provide better bus service, ordered the extra buses to help ease overcrowding.
Over the last year, Bliss has repeatedly issued findings that the MTA is in violation of standards in the decree that limit the number of passengers forced to stand.
The MTA, the nation's third-largest transit agency, carries about 1.1 million bus riders a day across 3,300 miles of routes in Los Angeles County.
The transit agency and the Bus Riders Union, an activist group that spearheaded a civil rights lawsuit charging the MTA with neglecting the bus system, agree on the number of extra buses needed to meet crowding standards.
But the two sides, which settled the lawsuit by signing the 10-year decree in 1996, disagree on important details.
The riders union wants 125 new buses added to the MTA's fleet of roughly 2,300. The MTA wants to buy 55 new vehicles and use 70 from little-used routes to make up the difference.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Tom Rubin
User ID: 0053014 Apr 30th 7:24 PM
I spent a lot of time working on Electric Bus in LA during the early 90's. First, in my opinion, it never was a serious proposal. Through some of his best backroom deals, Neil Peterson had taken away the Red Line from SCRTD and electric bus was a bone that was thrown to SCRTD to make it look like it had some role in the future of transit in LA.
When the funding got short about the time that MTA was formed, electric bus was a dead duck. Without funds for all the rail lines that had been promised to various politico's, there certainly wasn't going to be any money for EB.
There were some a number of huge problems with what was studied. First, the route network was designed to but one EB bus route in every city and every LA City Council District, etc. You just don't do EB networks in this way, you have to concentrate them. The main reason to do so is to get enough use out of the wire to make the investment worthwhile -- running four buses an hour in each direction just doesn't come close. Electrifying Boardway, where (potentially), dozens of buses an hour could share the lines might have.
The cost factor was against it. The way things worked out, it was just about a 3:2 ratio -- for every three diesels you could run, you could run two electrics. If there had been a more logical route structure for EB, this ratio would have been less unfavorable for EB, but I didn't see any way that EB would ever win on cost.
With the piss-poor network that was proposed, EB actually had a NEGATIVE impact on air quality. Converting existing routes to EB would have taken so many buses off the streets that bus ridership would have gone down significantly, which means trips not taken on bus or other transit, which means more auto trips -- and the auto's that would be used by these displaced bus riders would not exactly have been brand new hybrids.
Running wires down the middle of streets, while doable, is a bigger problem that some people are willing to admit. It is ugly, it can be a problem for fire departments responding to fires, they need a fair amount of maintenance, and if one falls, you can have major problems. None of these makes it impossible to do -- hell, look at the all the places that have it -- but whenever you have something "new" like this going into someone's neighborhood, ... well, do I need to explain more?
Tom Rubin
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 9:04:34 GMT -8
Dane
User ID: 1473814 Jan 13th [2004] 11:25 AM
As expected, it's official:
LA Times - 1/13/04
For MTA, the Bucks Start Here
Consent decree overseer orders the agency to purchase 145 buses to relieve overcrowding.
By Kurt Streeter
Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2004
Finding that bus overcrowding remains a serious problem in Los Angeles County, a federal monitor ruled Monday that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority must press forward with the purchase of 145 buses by the end of next year.
In issuing his order, Donald Bliss, a Washington lawyer and court-appointed special master who is overseeing a 10-year federal consent decree established in 1996, rejected MTA claims that it could cut overcrowding without significantly increasing the size of its roughly 2,400-vehicle fleet. The MTA has argued that it could meet the goal primarily through better management of its bus lines.
Though it can be appealed, Bliss' order is meant to put into effect a tentative judgment he released in September. The order expands the number of buses Bliss wants the MTA to buy — from the 117 he asked for in September to 145 — and calls on the agency to add 370,185 operating hours of bus service per year.
It will cost the MTA nearly $40 million to purchase the buses by the end of 2005, and another $40 million a year to operate them, said Marc Littman, a spokesman for the agency. Littman said it was too early for the MTA to draw up a timetable for the purchases.
Bliss wants the MTA to satisfy his order as fast as possible, even if it must lease buses while waiting for the new vehicles to come.
MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble said in a statement Monday that the ruling was "not good news by any means." He added that the agency needed time to digest the 89-page document.
An organizer for the Bus Riders Union, whose lawsuit alleging inadequate bus service in minority communities led to the consent decree, hailed the ruling as a huge win.
"It is a victory for the bus riders of L.A.," said Cynthia Rojas. Bliss' finding that MTA buses remain overcrowded made it very clear that the MTA has not complied with the decree, she said.
Bliss said the MTA must make the new buses a priority even if money has to come from other sources, such as planned rail projects.
He wrote that he realized the order to buy more buses would cause hardship at the agency because state and federal transportation funding is drying up. But he said that improving transportation for the poor while the economy sputters was extremely important.
"It is during times like these," he said, "that the preservation and improvement of bus service to the overwhelming majority of the MTA's ridership who depend upon buses to get to jobs, schools and health-care facilities becomes especially critical."
Bliss noted that the MTA bus system had improved greatly since the decree was signed in 1996. The agency is now more attuned to riders' needs, operates one of the newest fleets in the nation, uses environmentally sensitive natural gas and offers cutting-edge express buses, he said.
But he added that the agency continues to violate benchmarks that require heavily used routes to have no more than an average of eight people standing because they can't find a seat. He said that 15 MTA bus routes were found to have 28 standing passengers during periodic checks late last year.
Over the past two years, the MTA has argued that it could address the overcrowding almost exclusively through better management of its bus system. The agency is touting its recent launch of a computerized scheduling program, for example.
Bliss found that the computerized system helped, but not nearly as much as the MTA claimed.
Without additional buses and the hundreds of thousands of hours in extra service they would provide, Bliss said, the MTA's proposal to mitigate overcrowding through improved scheduling would be "a little like rearranging the chairs on a shrinking deck."
The MTA and the Bus Riders Union are both legally allowed to ask Bliss for a review of the order or to file an appeal with U.S. District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr., who oversaw the consent decree's creation.
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Jan 13th 11:56 AM
Answer to problem.
Since the MTA, oops, Metro can raise fares, make them the same as other large bus lines in California. That would take care of the cost. With the cost of operating a car, not including the cost of the car, riding public transportation is a bargin.
Metro should learn from South Pasadena about using the courts to delay buying the busses. If they can tie the case up in courts long enough, the decree time limit will be over.
Bob
PaulC
User ID: 1285974 Jan 13th 12:48 PM
The main problem here is that on some routes the ridership is just too heavy. Only a Metro can handle some of these routes. Sometimes putting more buses into the mix doesn’t help. We need a higher capacity vehicle, and that’s a train. But the Bru and bus drivers are against this
Paul
David
User ID: 9245273 Jan 13th 2:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 9:12:53 GMT -8
Art GUser ID: 9454293 Jan 16th 1:28 PM It digusts me how the BRU seems to prefer to use people with latino names to be quoted in interviews. Maybe the transit coalition should have me or Roberto only comment in print, or better yet, Bart change his last name from Reed to Ramirez! Adrian Auer-HudsonUser ID: 1355924 Jan 16th 1:38 PM Agreed Art, racism always sucks. It manages to successfully combine evil and stupidity. Just curious: Auer is a corruption of the Hebrew for Lion (Ari). Is it possible to construct a Latin family name from Leon? Bart ReedUser ID: 1606604 Jan 16th 2:31 PM Art: You do realize my first name is: Bartholomew, which is pronounced "barto-lo-may". And yes, we do have some OpEd's that would go into La Opinion. E-mail me at CAtransit@yahoo.com and we can work something out! You certainly have the correct names! Þ-Þ-®-Þ-Þ JohnUser ID: 9510053 Jan 16th 10:42 PM Kudos to the Bus Riders Union for its magnificent pro-transit positions and actions! RobertUser ID: 2037954 Jan 16th 11:09 PM John BRU is not PRO transit, the BRU is PRO 40' BUS. Bob Bart ReedUser ID: 1606604 Feb 3rd 8:42 AM LOS ANGELES TIMES: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 MTA to Appeal Order to Buy Buses By Kurt Streeter Times Staff Writer The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's board voted Monday to appeal a federal monitor's order to purchase 145 new buses, the latest in a drawn-out battle over a 1996 federal consent decree demanding improved bus service in Los Angeles County. The MTA was ordered last month to purchase the 145 buses by special master Donald T. Bliss, who was appointed to monitor the 10-year decree. Bliss also ordered the agency to add 370,000 hours of new bus service, saying the MTA has failed to meet standards on bus overcrowding laid out in the decree. The MTA will appeal Bliss' decision to U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter, who executed the consent decree. Hatter had sided with the MTA in 1999 when the agency asked him to review a Bliss order to buy 481 buses. Hatter reduced the requirement to 248 buses. MTA board members said the agency can't afford to buy 145 new buses, which could cost roughly $400 million to purchase and operate over 10 years. They said they can reduce overcrowding by better managing the agency's fleet of roughly 2,400 buses. Bliss has rejected that argument. "We can provide service more efficiently while meeting the spirit of the ruling and getting more service out there with what we have," said MTA board member John Fasana, a Duarte city councilman. Such sentiments do not sit well with the MTA's chief critic, the Bus Riders Union. The nonprofit group was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit that triggered the consent decree on grounds that the MTA provided poor service for low-income riders. Cynthia Rojas, a riders union organizer, said the MTA's appeal is a sign of desperation. "The only way you can comply with reducing overcrowding and providing expanded service is buying more buses and putting more service on the streets," Rojas said. Agreeing with Rojas was Los Angeles City Councilman Martin Ludlow, one of two MTA board members who voted against the decision to appeal. "The strategy of the past, to get around the consent decree, has once again reared its ugly head," Ludlow said. "The bus-dependent of Los Angeles County need these buses." Joining Ludlow in voting against the appeal was Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge. Voting in favor were Los Angeles County Super-visors Zev Yaroslavsky, Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe, Pico Rivera Mayor Beatrice Proo, Santa Monica Councilwoman Pam O'Connor, Lancaster Mayor Frank Roberts and Fasana. Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina abstained. L.A. County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, L.A. City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa and L.A. Mayor James K. Hahn, the latter the most powerful member of the MTA board, did not vote. Hahn was attending an event at a South Los Angeles Boys & Girls Club during the meeting, a spokesman for the mayor said. Þ-Þ-®-Þ-Þ Bart ReedUser ID: 1606604 Feb 3rd 8:44 AM Los Angeles Daily News: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 MTA votes to appeal bus purchase Board seeks cheaper way to increase service By Lisa Mascaro Staff Writer A divided MTA board voted on Monday to appeal a court order to buy 145 buses to reduce over-crowding, saying it can add the required new service without purchasing $100 million in new buses, officials said. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's appeal to U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter comes as the agency must reduce the number of passengers standing on a bus to no more than eight as part of a consent decree that grew from a civil rights lawsuit. "The issue is, do we have to go out there and buy additional buses at taxpayer expense?" said MTA spokesman Marc Littman. "We might have to put out some new buses, ... but that'll save taxpayers a lot of money." The Bus Riders Union, which filed the lawsuit resulting in the 10-year consent decree and had urged the MTA to comply rather than appeal, said the agency is trying tactics already rejected by the court. "We believe this appeal is from a position of weakness," said BRU organizer Manuel Criollo. "The very core arguments MTA has tried and have been rejected." The MTA board has struggled with its response to the January ruling by the court-appointed special master as the appeal deadline neared. The agency has said it will cost $30 million annually to provide the 290,000 hours of new bus service as the special master ordered, or $300 million over the next 10 years. It further estimated the cost of new buses at about $100 million over 10 years, Littman said. But the agency believes it will be able to provide the required hours with fewer than the 145 buses mandated. "The MTA believes that through more efficient scheduling of its buses it can provide all units of service with fewer than the 145 buses identified by the special master," according to a statement. The agency already has hundreds of new buses on order. The board voted 7-2-1, with Councilmen Martin Ludlow and Tom La Bonge opposed, and Supervisor Gloria Molina abstaining. Absent were Mayor James Hahn, Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa and Supervisor Yvonne Braithwaite Burke. Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com Þ-Þ-®-Þ-Þ RobertUser ID: 2037954 Feb 3rd 8:56 AM NBC 4 MTA Agrees To Increase Bus Service Hours Agency Won't Put 145 New Buses On The Road POSTED: 9:49 PM PST February 2, 2004 LOS ANGELES -- The MTA has only partially accepted a federal court order calling for it to put more buses on the road and increase service hours, an MTA official said Monday. The agency will add about 290,000 additional bus service hours -- at the cost of about $30 million a year -- as specified by Special Master Donald Bliss, but won't place 145 new buses on the road, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Marc Littman said. The MTA can accomplish the increase in service hours with fewer buses, Littman said. The MTA's Board of Directors has also decided to petition U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter to modify Bliss' order requiring it purchase new buses in addition to those needed to provide the increase in service hours, Littman said. There are already plenty of buses on order, with 100 45-foot buses scheduled to arrive this spring and 200 60-foot buses next January, Littman said. Cynthia Rojas of the Bus Riders Union called the board's decision "a full- blown appeal of Donald Bliss' order." "This appeal is coming out of a position of weakness on the part of the MTA majority that voted for it," she said. Of the 13 board members, seven voted to accept the order. Los Angeles City Council members Tom LaBonge and Martin Ludlow voted against the order, County Supervisor Gloria Molina abstained and Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa and Mayor Jim Hahn were not present. "We know that there are splits on this board and we applaud those members of the board who attempted to shift the direction of the MTA," Rojas said. Rojas said she doesn't expect the MTA to have much luck with Hatter. "They are going back to the same courts that have rejected their arguments in the past that have upheld the special master's authority," she said. However, an MTA official said the agency isn't arguing against the increase in service hours, but thinks it can work more efficiently. "We just believe we can put those additional hours on the street without purchasing as many buses as the special master has indicated," said the MTA's Ed Scannell. The stipulations in the Jan. 12 court order are supposed to reduce overcrowding on MTA buses and are a result of a 1996 consent decree between the MTA and the Labor/Community Strategy Center. Copyright 2004 by NBC4.tv. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ===== Bob JerardUser ID: 1258494 Feb 3rd 10:23 AM Here's a way to better use of its bus fleet: -Revert back to Limited Stop on the existing Rapid Routes. -Define Rapid Bus Program as a Integrated System (like Curtiba, Brazil where our Red Buses and setup but not our execution are derived from) where ALL buses recieve the special device to hold the lights and near-side street boarding, And special Bus shelters, at major transfer points. -Rapid should be an addition to and not a replacement for Local-Limited Service. The Bus stops roughly every 1.5 to 2 miles such as Wilshire Blvd Rapid only stopping West from Downtown; Alvarado, Vermont, Western, La Brea or Fairfax, Westwood, Bundy, 14th and Downtown Santa Monica. This would really be "rapid" though it would be in the same traffic as the other buses, it would move PASSENGERS not VEHICLES more efficently. BobbyUser ID: 8868883 Feb 4th 4:58 PM I heard on NPR about that court order and an interviewer was interviewing some man from the MTA and he said that they don't want to order more busses because they would create more traffic than they would relieve and the only next best thing to that capacity would be rail! I wish I could have gotten his name. Maybe somebody else heard it. PaulCUser ID: 0728844 Feb 4th 5:21 PM So is MTA going to start aggressively pushing more rail project now and complete them faster? I guess thats the million dollar question. Paul Bart ReedUser ID: 1606604 Feb 5th 8:13 AM What the MTA Spokesperson was saying is that the density of bus service is so great on streets such as Wilshire, Vermont and others that adding more just adds to the overall congestion. And, yes, the real solution on these corridors is rail. MTA is aggressively pushing rail. It is just a matter of funding. And that is going to take longer. Even groups such as The Transit Coalition are not going to represent the need for potential rail service before lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington because we aren't raising enough donations to get there. Without the grassroots financial support of all of you, things are just going to get worse. Þ--Þ--Þ PaulCUser ID: 1285974 Feb 5th 11:02 AM How much do you need Bart? Paul DaneUser ID: 1473814 Feb 5th 1:13 PM Bart, Hang in there, I may be able to help out a little more at the end of the month! Can't say how much yet, but somethin' is better'n nuthin', right? Joel CUser ID: 1084044 Apr 15th [2005] 2:51 AM tinyurl.com/cugjjMTA Ordered to Expand Its Fleet of Rapid Buses By Sharon Bernstein Times Staff Writer April 15, 2005 The Metropolitan Transportation Authority must put 134 new buses into its Metro Rapid fleet under a legal order issued Thursday. The agency's ability to pay for the vehicles by eliminating regular local buses on the routes the new Rapid lines serve is limited by the order. The court action by Special Master Donald Bliss is a victory for the Bus Riders Union. Earlier this year, the transit advocacy group accused the MTA of flouting a consent decree requiring the agency to improve bus service for Los Angeles County residents. The MTA said Thursday that it was in compliance with the decree. "Since the consent decree was signed in 1996, we have added more than 1.6 million annual bus-service hours, which have not resulted in a corresponding increase in demand," the agency said in a statement. "To date, the additional capital and operating costs associated with this service expansion has cost taxpayers more than $1 billion." The decree was part of the settlement of a lawsuit that several community groups filed against the MTA in 1994. Bliss was appointed in 1996 to oversee implementation of the agreement. Part of the agency's response to the decree was the Rapid Bus service, which features bright red vehicles that make fewer stops than ordinary buses. "The MTA had implemented the Rapid Buses by reducing local services," said Manuel Criollo, a Bus Riders Union organizer. Under Bliss' order, the MTA must pay for the new buses mostly with funds currently designated for services such as light rail and the subway that are unrelated to the agreement. The MTA is allowed to recoup only a third of the costs by reducing local service along the Rapid routes. Steven Carnevale, the county attorney who represents the MTA, said it would cost about $20 million to operate the new buses — at a time when the agency is strapped for funds. It would be illegal, he said, to use rail money to expand bus service, because most of those funds come from earmarked federal and state grants. The MTA has until July 31 to develop a plan to implement the new order. JohnUser ID: 9921013 Apr 15th 9:17 AM Hooray! This is the best news I've read in some time! What a nice victory for transit users/supporters! Applause for Special Master Donald Bliss for issuing this pro-transit order! What a satisfying step forward! erictUser ID: 2003384 Apr 15th 10:04 AM The "bus riders union" is so obviously a federally funded special intrest group representing the gas and oil corporations. Their only goal is to reduce or stall the development of rail lines in los angeles county. Why would an agancy representing the "people of LA county" be in SUCH opposition to a very logical and effective alternative to buses? Even AAA supports rail expansion in LA county as the best means to reducing congestion. The MTA has proved that adding buses did not increase ridership. That the BRU insists that ALL of the funding for its additional buses comes from future and current rail projects PROVES that the organization exists for the sole purpose of eleminating the rail projects that are so despirately need in Los Angeles. This should be a wake up call to the citizens and transit riders of LA - eleminate the BRU. James FujitaUser ID: 9106183 Apr 15th 11:58 AM this order is ridiculous and I agree completely with Steven Carnevale. the whole point of earmarking funds is to make sure that the money gets spent for a specific purpose. isn't there any way that the MTA can appeal this decision?
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 9:23:27 GMT -8
Joel CUser ID: 1084044 Apr 15th 12:29 PM MTA has been avoiding picking a legal fight with the BRU, since the end of the consent decree is approaching. So the BRU is trying to get all it can while it can. At some point, though, the MTA may need to decide enough is enough, and fight this bs in court. DaveKUser ID: 8541163 Apr 15th 12:29 PM The order can be appealed, first to the judge that appointed the Special Master, and ultimately to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As Carnivale states, the MTA cannot be ordered to spend funds on buses that are legally mandated to be spent on rail. Ultimately this proves the folly of the Consent Decree. The MTA must do whatever it can to extricate itself from this legal straitjacket. Michael M.User ID: 0310794 Apr 15th 2:51 PM What am I missing here?  ? MTA initiates Rapid Bus service (2000) partly, I'm told, in response to BRU complaints about service and overcrowding. Largely by reducing local service along Rapid Bus routes. Now the Court, pursuant to a BRU request, orders the MTA to buy and operate 134 more Rapid Buses. MTA can't divert rail money to buses because rail money comes from earmarked federal & state grants. MTA CAN, under the court order, fund up to 1/3 of the Rapid Bus expansion out of funding for local bus service. So where does the BRU THINK that the funding is going to come from to implement this order (if the order survives appeal)? ---------------------------- Also, transit advocates in Southern California that support rail need to start making serious noise about "Metro Rapid" - It's not an increase in service, because all MTA is doing is cutting local service to implement Rapid. - MTA is telling us that we should be wetting our pants with excitement because we are getting a LOWER level of service than what was offered in the city that pioneered BRT (Curitiba, Brazil, where the buses operated on exclusive transitways, had off-vehicle fare collection, and those lines are now being converted to rail). So the whole promotion of Metro Rapid as an improved level of service is fraudulent. - Point # 1 that the MTA DOESN'T GET: Express services need to be frequent enough so that Passenger J.Q. Public actually saves time riding them over local service. Many rapid bus lines operate at 20-25 minute headways peak hour, Monday through Friday only. On a line that's only 15 miles long, J.Q. Public would have made his trip more quickly taking a local bus than by waiting for the Rapid. A second reason why Metro Rapid needs to be very frequent is the lack of schedules; without very frequent service, passengers can't make timed connections to other routes. Point # 2 that MTA doesn't get: A "Rapid" bus + a traffic jam =: A. Metro Rapid service B. A bus stuck in a traffic jam Let me give you a clue, people, it equals A BUS STUCK IN A $$#&*@@ TRAFFIC JAM And not one person in Gateway Plaza had the raw brainpower to understand that when Metro Rapid was being designed. ---------- So am I arguing that the whole Metro Rapid "system" be junked? No. Metro Rapid has some value, given that it is run: - At approx. 5 minute headways during peak hours (to deal with the timed connections problem mentioned above) - At no greater than 10-12 minute or so headways during all other times of operation (to deal with the time savings vs. local service problem) - Operated 7 days per week (Mon-Fri peak-hour only "Rapids" are just limited buses painted red). Joel CUser ID: 1084044 Apr 15th 3:19 PM Exactly. Now that the BRU realizes Rapid Bus wasn't the panacea they made it out to be, they ask for more changes. Well there are some places Rapid Bus will not work. Traffic is traffic, and no bus is "Rapid" when it's stuck in traffic. All the more reason to build more rail on dedicated ROWs through the most congested corridors ASAP. DaveKUser ID: 8541163 Apr 15th 3:45 PM "Metro Rapid" is a perfect example of the folly of the Consent Decree. Instead of thinking logically about how to increase bus service, MTA has to think strategically about how to comply with the Consent Decree. Similarly, the raison d'etre of the BRU being "enforcement" of the Consent Decree, they must continually come up with ways of alleging that the MTA is not in compliance. Mind you, this does not mean the MTA should have a blank check to mess around with bus service. Rather, it should devise bus service in a publicly accountable way, that serves those most dependent on bus transportation in the most efficient way possible. The Consent Decree prevents this rather than encouraging it. Remembering that the lawsuit leading to the Consent Decree alleged race discrimination, the MTA should simply set up methods of allocating funds which seeks input from all affected groups and then makes decisions carefully tied to transportation needs. And get the heck out of the Consent Decree ASAP. crzwdjkUser ID: 0122954 Apr 15th 4:06 PM Rapid transit is *BY DEFINITION* not running on streets. That is what enables it to be rapid. Why did cities build subways originally? Because there was too much congestion on the surface, sometimes to the point of there being too many streetcars ("light rail") on the street that there was congestion. LA definitely has this problem, both with streets being too congested for effective bus service, as well as some bus lines being near the limit of their useful capacity. While Metro Rapid is a useful idea when implemented correctly, the way it is marketed is a scam. When you say "Metro Rapid Transit" to any normal person from any other city, they will most likely think of a fast train, running in tunnels or on viaducts. You know, a metro. Rapid Transit. Trains that go fast. What they will not think of is a bus that is painted red and going faster by virtue of making fewer stops. JohnUser ID: 9921013 Apr 15th 5:22 PM I think the best thing about the Rapid Buses is that they make limited stops, which, of course, helps them make far better time than local buses do. And the best thing about the Consent Decree, it seems to me, is that bus service has gotten so much better ever since it was issued. Michael M.User ID: 0310794 Apr 15th 6:53 PM John, since the consent decree was agreed to: MTA has: - abandoned dozens of routes to municipal carriers; these routes are generally now fragmented between 3 or 4 routes and carriers each. This is ESPECIALLY true in suburban areas. Municipals tend to have shorter spans of service, longer headways, and are less likely to run on clock headways than MTA is. (A clock headway just means that the schedule repeats at regular intervals, like 4:00, 4:10, 4:20, etc., rather than 4:01, 4:17, 4:29, 4:43, etc.; clock headways make transit more convenient for riders). Not to mention that municipals don't have interchangeable fares with the MTA, increasing costs to passengers. - Cut back dramatically on late evening and owl service (so that, for instance, hundreds of thousands of second-shift workers now have a harder time getting home from work by transit) - Implemented Rapid Bus (see my criticisms above) So how, exactly, has bus service improved since the Consent Decree? Michael M.User ID: 0310794 Apr 15th 7:01 PM I should have mentioned above, I think Metro Rapid COULD be effective if run on exclusive ROWs (as BRT was/is in Curitiba). But there are precious few places where that is practicable/possible on surface streets, and the drawbacks of freeway-median stations have already been thoroughly described on this board. JohnUser ID: 9921013 Apr 15th 7:36 PM Michael, it has been my perception that, since the Consent Decree transit victory, the buses that I take generally have shorter headways AND there are more Rapid Bus routes. Now, for instance, I can ride the #710 Rapid, which, if I recall correctly, did not exist prior to the great victory. Plus, now there is even a #317 Limited that didn't exist before the triumph. I don't know whether or not service has improved in the 'burbs. But my feeling is that if a person chooses to live in the 'burbs (although I can fully understand that choice and have known car owners who made it) they have to tolerate whatever bus service they can get. My partner and I had to do that during the almost two decades that we lived in the San Fernando Valley and in the South Bay. However, I suppose that wherever there is high ridership, even in the 'burbs, MTA will try to provide a decent level of service, since the demand would be there for it. On the other hand, wherever ridership is low, less service should be expected. I do sympathize with anyone who has to work at night, because headways are generally longer then. This being the case, I think MTA should nix plans for any further light rail lines at least until it can provide better nighttime bus service. Ken AlpernUser ID: 1696934 Apr 16th 9:22 AM As much as the Consent Decree has been hurtful for transit service overall, it could also be claimed that during these difficult budgetary times that there wasn't much opportunity to create new rail lines anyway. Getting more Metro Rapid and other buses are perhaps just as well (despite an overall shooting of the BRU in the foot towards their riders) for the county. The extra $20 million or so isn't so much compared to the billions we'll be spending on light rail and subways--and I do think that our county will find the willingness to spend billions in a plan that includes fare raises for the riders that the BRU is supposed to " represent and protect". As much as I believe it IS illegal for the Special Master to ask the MTA to take money legally allotted for a capital project towards bus service (and I think the MTA will win in court on that issue), having more buses to feed into the Expo/Gold Lines will be big winners by 2009/10. With a new Mayor (I don't believe many folks will be able to accuse Mr. Villaraigosa of being racists towards minorities), and with the death of the Consent Decree next year, I think we'll see a big ratcheting up of a good transit grid by 2009/10 with the completion of the next round of rail projects. JohnUser ID: 9921013 Apr 16th 9:40 AM If taxes are raised in order to pay for the rail projects (or for any other reasons), then I think we will see a further increase in the already great exodus of people from Los Angeles County. The GiantUser ID: 9001673 Apr 16th 4:55 PM In increase in the exodus? I'd call that a fringe benefit! Chris LedermullerUser ID: 9600383 Apr 17th 1:51 AM John's being an ... he's being himself again ... so let me address this to the general group since he obviously will not get it. *Line 710 used to be Line 310. The improvement was adding mid-day service, plus getting rid of the annoying dogleg to Wilshire/Western station. The limited-stop zone was narrowed, but 310 already had a pretty skimpy local zone (all along Artesia Boulevard and on Vine Street north of Santa Monica Boulevard). The service did exist. *Line 317 was an addition done by creative run-cutting. It was supposed to be a Rapid, in fact the Fairfax leg of Line 780. MTA is going to keep these lines separate. When 317 becomes 717, there will be no discernible difference. (Fairfax has so much cross-traffic on east-west streets putting in the Magic Light transponders is a waste of time). It's already a Rapid line, only without the red buses. Neither of these plans had anything to do with Bus Riders Union involvement. The only routes BRU actually proposed came from a working group in the late 1990s, and the only notable successes to come from that are lines 603, 605, Pico/Union DASH and LADOT 422. The track record of the lines has been poor, so MTA decided to scrap the remaining project lines in 2001 and put the money in Rapid service. As for night buses, planners don't run services that people don't plan on using. Night buses always run well under capacity, and there's no need for L.A. to have a service policy like Las Vegas where all local routes, regardless of performance, run 21 hours a day. (Seriously. A low-ridership line that runs hourly goes until 1:30 a.m., just like a 30-, 20- or even 15-minute service, with 9 routes providing 24-hour service.) That's a good example of policy headways. I agree there should be some night service, but there needs to be something like a 9 p.m.-to-5 a.m. dial-a-cab service covering much of L.A. County. The Las Vegas policy headway won't work in L.A. crzwdjkUser ID: 0122954 Apr 17th 2:43 AM There is in fact night service, and some of it is even reasonably popular. Having had the opportunity recently to ride the last 485 bus, I can say that it does have enough ridership to justify even the last trip, at 1 am. And on the combination 446/45 bus that arrives in Downtown at midnight, every seat was taken. There were also plenty of people on the Gold Line even at 1 am. Not crowded by any means, but not empty either. So there is in fact demand for night service. Also, there is another good reason for night service: it can help cut down on drunk driving. You know, "Had one too many? Let us do the driving. Go Metro." The major improvement that needs to be made to night service is not necessarily shortening the headways, but rather timing transfers better. Especially the transfer from the 485 to the 446/447, which is timed such that you just miss the connection. Bad as a middle of the night transfer in Downtown LA is, having to wait 50 minutes is even more annoying. Also, they might want to consider running all night train service. The nighttime maintenance window is already only about 3 hours on the Gold, Green, and Red lines, and 4.5 hours on the Blue Line. Night service would run every 20-30 minutes, with timed transfers. If maintenance needs to be done, they could run trains on a single track, it shouldn't be a problem with such headways. Bart ReedUser ID: 9523443 Apr 18th 2:15 AM For those of you who've only read the somewhat inaccurate L.A. Times story on the next steps of the Consent Decree, I am going to give you a preview of the order from Special Master Donald Bliss. Look at: tinyurl.com/99ya3If you want to see more of the decree, please write us at CAtransit@yahoo.com Þ--Þ--Þ RobertUser ID: 9092003 Apr 19th 9:29 AM Full 48 pages are now up. Bob Michael M.User ID: 0310794 Apr 19th 10:07 AM crzwdjk, good idea about all-night rail service.
|
|
?