Post by bennyp81 on Jun 21, 2005 7:54:09 GMT -8
Matt Kelly
User ID: 8576533 Nov 9th [2001]2:38 PM
Are you sitting down for this one?
L.A. Times
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 arecurrently 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
overcrowding 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."
Darrell Clarke
User ID: 2093804 Nov 10th 12:19 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.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Jan 11th [2002] 12:36 AM
Los Angeles Times: Wednesday, January 09, 2002
It's Decision Time for MTA in the Battle Over Bus Service; Transit: Board is to vote today to abide by a court agreement or seek a final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(1,086 words---Article)
By KURT STREETER
Times Staff Writer
The board of Los Angeles County's transit system will meet in closed session today to decide whether to continue its five-year legal fight against a federal court agreement requiring vastly improved bus service.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is scheduled to vote on whether to simply abide by all aspects of the agreement or try for a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
An appeal would be the board's fifth attempt at a legal review, one that would infuriate bus passenger and civil rights advocates.
Some activists fear that if the high court took the case and ruled in the MTA's favor, it could weaken court-mandated civil rights agreements that protect people in a variety of other circumstances.
"Even by considering this, the board is showing its outright hostility, not only to bus riders in this county, but to the cause of civil rights nationwide," said Eric Mann, head of the Bus Riders Union, the advocacy group that was the lead plaintiff in the court challenge against the MTA.
Despite frequent protests from Mann and others, many MTA board members have remained intent on fighting the agreement because they say an order to buy more buses could severely affect the agency's treasury.
Over the course of the agreement, the court could force the agency to add hundreds more buses to a fleet already numbering about 2,100.
MTA officials say that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly forcing cutbacks in critical highway and rail programs.
"We're charged with providing not only buses, but all different kinds of mobility in this county," said Roger Snoble, chief executive of the transit agency, who would not say what he will recommend to the board. "This agreement hamstrings us from being able to do all of that."
The vote by the 13-member panel promises to be a close one.
Virtually certain to go against an appeal is a bloc led by Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, who has consistently balked at the legal challenges since joining the board last year.
The mayor hopes that the three MTA board members he appointed will vote with him, but he realizes he must sway several others.
To make his point, Hahn sent letters to the entire board Monday.
"To continue to challenge aspects of the agreement is without strong legal merit," wrote the former Los Angeles city attorney. It "is unfair to transit users who deserve the highest level of service."
Five board members, including county Supervisor Mike Antonovich and board Chairman John Fasana, are likely to vote against Hahn and for the appeal.
That leaves key votes in the hands of MTA board members Zev Yaroslavsky, Gloria Molina and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke--all county supervisors and political liberals.
Each has voted to appeal in the past. None would say which way he or she was leaning going into today's vote.
It has been five years since the MTA willingly signed the federal agreement rather than face a court battle in a lawsuit filed by bus rider advocates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The suit claimed that the bus system, which carries the bulk of the MTA's customers, was being deprived, while the agency was spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a subway and rail system.
The agreement bound the nation's second-largest transit system to a vast upgrade of its bus service and established a strict set of benchmarks by which improvement would be measured.
But, although it signed willingly, the MTA has balked and mounted legal challenges virtually from the outset.
Those efforts have summarily been shot down. A federal judge, a court-appointed special master and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court all turned back MTA appeals.
Most recently, the agency tried an appeal to a broad panel of federal judges. In October, the judges voted unanimously that the MTA's legal arguments did not merit further review.
Such resounding defeats do not bode well for the possibility that the Supreme Court would even consider the case.
Still, MTA administrators continue to have numer-ous objections to the court order. They question the power of special master Donald Bliss, a Washington lawyer appointed by the fed-eral court, who has ordered the MTA to buy new buses.
The agency also continues to balk at "load factors"--a statistical tool used to measure bus crowding. Part of the agreement calls on the agency to reach numerous benchmarks.
The final load factor goal, due June 30, requires that the number of passengers standing on MTA buses should be no more than 20% of the number with seats. The measure is taken in 20-minute increments.
The load issue has dogged the agreement from the start. The MTA contends that it needs to be in compliance with the measurement only most of the time.
"It's unreasonable to think there will never be a moment when you don't go over that limit," said Snoble, who, like many board members, believes that the standard for determining bus overcrowding is unclear.
He also contends that the 2,100-bus MTA fleet has already met all of the benchmarks.
Bus rider advocates and their lawyers have steadfastly disagreed, contending that not enough buses have been placed into service to ensure that the goal is achieved at all times.
The advocates cite data showing that crowding has lessened on some MTA buses, but that other goals have remained unmet for years.
"They've put more buses on the road, but they are still far short of where they need to be," Mann said. "Looking at these violations, how can we back down?"
Some legal experts believe that a Supreme Court review of the MTA case would have far broader implications--spurring other government agencies to seek reviews of their federal court agreements.
"It could definitely do damage," said USC prof-essor Erwin Chemerinsky. "Ultimately, this is a civil rights case."
But others, including civil rights attorney Constance Rice, said the matter would not set a precedent on civil rights law.
Rice, lead counsel for bus advocates when the matter first went to court, said the MTA appeal is
based on a narrow interpretation of contract law that should not affect other civil rights cases.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Jan 11th 12:40 AM
Los Angeles Times: Thursday, January 10, 2002
MTA to Again Appeal Bus Service Agreement Transportation: Board votes to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Experts say a hearing is unlikely. (985 words---Article)
By KURT STREETER
Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County's transit agency voted Wednesday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal agreement requiring a massive expansion of bus service for poor and minority riders.
Board members for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority called the agreement too costly and overly intrusive.
The MTA board voted 8-4, with one abstention, to pursue a final appeal after a string of bitter legal defeats stretching over several years.
Board members cast their decision as an attempt to gain clarity on a confusing and contradictory court order that could hamper other transit efforts, including highway and light-rail improvements.
But civil rights activists and bus rider representatives said the vote is just the latest evidence of the giant agency's intransigence when it comes to helping mostly low-income bus patrons.
Legal observers predicted that the MTA has only a slim chance of convincing the Supreme Court that there is an issue of legal merit in the dispute.
"We are going to try to get clarification on this matter. . . . The way parts of this decree are set up is very unfair," said board chairman John Fasana, who added that he believes the MTA has not received credit for adhering to the order to improve bus service.
Taking strong issue with that stance were members of the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group that was the lead plaintiff in the civil rights case that led to the federal court agreement more than five years ago.
"The board should be a little more honest," said Eric Mann, the Bus Riders Union leader.
They "are appealing the heart and soul of the consent decree and leaving an empty shell. It's disgusting."
According to the MTA's chief counsel, the appeal, which must be filed by Monday, will revolve around several issues. First, the MTA will contend that the contract is unfair and unclear.
In addition, the agency will argue that the federal judge and a special court master over-stepped their bounds in telling the MTA it must add more buses to a fleet of roughly 2,100.
MTA administrators worry that such specific directives could become even more onerous as the lower court's timetable begins to dictate the level of service that must be provided to hospitals, schools and job centers.
If too much money goes to those efforts, the order could jeopardize the agency's big ticket rail and highway improvements, they say.
"The special master should have given more discretion to the MTA to come up with their own remedy to the [overcrowding] violations that he found," said the agency's chief counsel, Steve Carnevale.
But several legal experts said the odds are extremely remote that the high court will agree to accept the case as one of the few it reviews each year.
Additionally, the MTA's case revolves primarily around narrow disputes over contract law, an issue the Supreme Court justices will not likely view as weighty or novel.
A lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, called it "highly unlikely" that the court will take the case. That view was echoed by several legal scholars not connected to the case.
The bid to the Supreme Court will be the MTA's fifth appeal of an agreement that it negotiated and signed in 1996--a record that has infuriated many civil rights advocates.
A federal judge, the court-appointed special master, a three-member panel of the U.S 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a broad panel of federal appeals court judges have all ruled against the MTA and in favor of the bus riders.
Joining the advocates Wednesday was Los Angles Mayor James K. Hahn. Fulfilling a campaign promise, Hahn argued that the agency should stop its appeals and concentrate on "working to provide better bus and better transit service to the people of Southern California.
"I am disappointed we are continuing to have this battle in court," a frustrated Hahn said after the vote. He had been unable to sway any of the members other than his three appointees, who all voted against an appeal.
The mayor did see the board unanimously approve a motion he wrote, calling for MTA administrators to implement the court decree as best as they can. The directive requires both sides to take disputes to special master Donald Bliss for settlement.
But that arrangement may prove problematic. MTA administrators say they have little faith in Bliss, who has ordered them to buy hundreds of buses in order to achieve the first portion of the decree--including a series of benchmarks to lessen overcrowding.
Roger Snoble, the agency's new chief executive, said he is particularly troubled by the strict "load factors" the bus line must adhere to. One that looms this June 30 requires that the number of passengers forced to stand at rush hours not exceed the number who are seated by more than 20%.
Snoble argues that many bus lines nationally don't meet such a strict standard and that the MTA needs flexibility and latitude to occasionally break the load goals.
But Bliss has consistently held that the load limits must be strictly enforced.
Snoble said the huge bus agency deserves more credit for the progress most observers agree it has made and acknowledgment that his administration is aggressively addressing crowding issues since he arrived in October.
Bus Riders Union chief Mann, in contrast, said he's not about to negotiate, particularly over decisions repeatedly affirmed in court.
"They introduced the load factor idea in the first place, we didn't come up with it," Mann said outside MTA headquarters downtown. "Now they want to change? Come on. They want to throw the whole consent decree out the window."
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Jan 11th 7:51 AM
I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court will even hear the MTA's appeal.
[Much to John's credit, they didn't. --bennyp81]
User ID: 8576533 Nov 9th [2001]2:38 PM
Are you sitting down for this one?
L.A. Times
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 arecurrently 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
overcrowding 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."
Darrell Clarke
User ID: 2093804 Nov 10th 12:19 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.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Jan 11th [2002] 12:36 AM
Los Angeles Times: Wednesday, January 09, 2002
It's Decision Time for MTA in the Battle Over Bus Service; Transit: Board is to vote today to abide by a court agreement or seek a final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.
(1,086 words---Article)
By KURT STREETER
Times Staff Writer
The board of Los Angeles County's transit system will meet in closed session today to decide whether to continue its five-year legal fight against a federal court agreement requiring vastly improved bus service.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is scheduled to vote on whether to simply abide by all aspects of the agreement or try for a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
An appeal would be the board's fifth attempt at a legal review, one that would infuriate bus passenger and civil rights advocates.
Some activists fear that if the high court took the case and ruled in the MTA's favor, it could weaken court-mandated civil rights agreements that protect people in a variety of other circumstances.
"Even by considering this, the board is showing its outright hostility, not only to bus riders in this county, but to the cause of civil rights nationwide," said Eric Mann, head of the Bus Riders Union, the advocacy group that was the lead plaintiff in the court challenge against the MTA.
Despite frequent protests from Mann and others, many MTA board members have remained intent on fighting the agreement because they say an order to buy more buses could severely affect the agency's treasury.
Over the course of the agreement, the court could force the agency to add hundreds more buses to a fleet already numbering about 2,100.
MTA officials say that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly forcing cutbacks in critical highway and rail programs.
"We're charged with providing not only buses, but all different kinds of mobility in this county," said Roger Snoble, chief executive of the transit agency, who would not say what he will recommend to the board. "This agreement hamstrings us from being able to do all of that."
The vote by the 13-member panel promises to be a close one.
Virtually certain to go against an appeal is a bloc led by Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, who has consistently balked at the legal challenges since joining the board last year.
The mayor hopes that the three MTA board members he appointed will vote with him, but he realizes he must sway several others.
To make his point, Hahn sent letters to the entire board Monday.
"To continue to challenge aspects of the agreement is without strong legal merit," wrote the former Los Angeles city attorney. It "is unfair to transit users who deserve the highest level of service."
Five board members, including county Supervisor Mike Antonovich and board Chairman John Fasana, are likely to vote against Hahn and for the appeal.
That leaves key votes in the hands of MTA board members Zev Yaroslavsky, Gloria Molina and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke--all county supervisors and political liberals.
Each has voted to appeal in the past. None would say which way he or she was leaning going into today's vote.
It has been five years since the MTA willingly signed the federal agreement rather than face a court battle in a lawsuit filed by bus rider advocates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The suit claimed that the bus system, which carries the bulk of the MTA's customers, was being deprived, while the agency was spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a subway and rail system.
The agreement bound the nation's second-largest transit system to a vast upgrade of its bus service and established a strict set of benchmarks by which improvement would be measured.
But, although it signed willingly, the MTA has balked and mounted legal challenges virtually from the outset.
Those efforts have summarily been shot down. A federal judge, a court-appointed special master and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court all turned back MTA appeals.
Most recently, the agency tried an appeal to a broad panel of federal judges. In October, the judges voted unanimously that the MTA's legal arguments did not merit further review.
Such resounding defeats do not bode well for the possibility that the Supreme Court would even consider the case.
Still, MTA administrators continue to have numer-ous objections to the court order. They question the power of special master Donald Bliss, a Washington lawyer appointed by the fed-eral court, who has ordered the MTA to buy new buses.
The agency also continues to balk at "load factors"--a statistical tool used to measure bus crowding. Part of the agreement calls on the agency to reach numerous benchmarks.
The final load factor goal, due June 30, requires that the number of passengers standing on MTA buses should be no more than 20% of the number with seats. The measure is taken in 20-minute increments.
The load issue has dogged the agreement from the start. The MTA contends that it needs to be in compliance with the measurement only most of the time.
"It's unreasonable to think there will never be a moment when you don't go over that limit," said Snoble, who, like many board members, believes that the standard for determining bus overcrowding is unclear.
He also contends that the 2,100-bus MTA fleet has already met all of the benchmarks.
Bus rider advocates and their lawyers have steadfastly disagreed, contending that not enough buses have been placed into service to ensure that the goal is achieved at all times.
The advocates cite data showing that crowding has lessened on some MTA buses, but that other goals have remained unmet for years.
"They've put more buses on the road, but they are still far short of where they need to be," Mann said. "Looking at these violations, how can we back down?"
Some legal experts believe that a Supreme Court review of the MTA case would have far broader implications--spurring other government agencies to seek reviews of their federal court agreements.
"It could definitely do damage," said USC prof-essor Erwin Chemerinsky. "Ultimately, this is a civil rights case."
But others, including civil rights attorney Constance Rice, said the matter would not set a precedent on civil rights law.
Rice, lead counsel for bus advocates when the matter first went to court, said the MTA appeal is
based on a narrow interpretation of contract law that should not affect other civil rights cases.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 Jan 11th 12:40 AM
Los Angeles Times: Thursday, January 10, 2002
MTA to Again Appeal Bus Service Agreement Transportation: Board votes to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Experts say a hearing is unlikely. (985 words---Article)
By KURT STREETER
Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County's transit agency voted Wednesday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal agreement requiring a massive expansion of bus service for poor and minority riders.
Board members for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority called the agreement too costly and overly intrusive.
The MTA board voted 8-4, with one abstention, to pursue a final appeal after a string of bitter legal defeats stretching over several years.
Board members cast their decision as an attempt to gain clarity on a confusing and contradictory court order that could hamper other transit efforts, including highway and light-rail improvements.
But civil rights activists and bus rider representatives said the vote is just the latest evidence of the giant agency's intransigence when it comes to helping mostly low-income bus patrons.
Legal observers predicted that the MTA has only a slim chance of convincing the Supreme Court that there is an issue of legal merit in the dispute.
"We are going to try to get clarification on this matter. . . . The way parts of this decree are set up is very unfair," said board chairman John Fasana, who added that he believes the MTA has not received credit for adhering to the order to improve bus service.
Taking strong issue with that stance were members of the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group that was the lead plaintiff in the civil rights case that led to the federal court agreement more than five years ago.
"The board should be a little more honest," said Eric Mann, the Bus Riders Union leader.
They "are appealing the heart and soul of the consent decree and leaving an empty shell. It's disgusting."
According to the MTA's chief counsel, the appeal, which must be filed by Monday, will revolve around several issues. First, the MTA will contend that the contract is unfair and unclear.
In addition, the agency will argue that the federal judge and a special court master over-stepped their bounds in telling the MTA it must add more buses to a fleet of roughly 2,100.
MTA administrators worry that such specific directives could become even more onerous as the lower court's timetable begins to dictate the level of service that must be provided to hospitals, schools and job centers.
If too much money goes to those efforts, the order could jeopardize the agency's big ticket rail and highway improvements, they say.
"The special master should have given more discretion to the MTA to come up with their own remedy to the [overcrowding] violations that he found," said the agency's chief counsel, Steve Carnevale.
But several legal experts said the odds are extremely remote that the high court will agree to accept the case as one of the few it reviews each year.
Additionally, the MTA's case revolves primarily around narrow disputes over contract law, an issue the Supreme Court justices will not likely view as weighty or novel.
A lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, called it "highly unlikely" that the court will take the case. That view was echoed by several legal scholars not connected to the case.
The bid to the Supreme Court will be the MTA's fifth appeal of an agreement that it negotiated and signed in 1996--a record that has infuriated many civil rights advocates.
A federal judge, the court-appointed special master, a three-member panel of the U.S 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a broad panel of federal appeals court judges have all ruled against the MTA and in favor of the bus riders.
Joining the advocates Wednesday was Los Angles Mayor James K. Hahn. Fulfilling a campaign promise, Hahn argued that the agency should stop its appeals and concentrate on "working to provide better bus and better transit service to the people of Southern California.
"I am disappointed we are continuing to have this battle in court," a frustrated Hahn said after the vote. He had been unable to sway any of the members other than his three appointees, who all voted against an appeal.
The mayor did see the board unanimously approve a motion he wrote, calling for MTA administrators to implement the court decree as best as they can. The directive requires both sides to take disputes to special master Donald Bliss for settlement.
But that arrangement may prove problematic. MTA administrators say they have little faith in Bliss, who has ordered them to buy hundreds of buses in order to achieve the first portion of the decree--including a series of benchmarks to lessen overcrowding.
Roger Snoble, the agency's new chief executive, said he is particularly troubled by the strict "load factors" the bus line must adhere to. One that looms this June 30 requires that the number of passengers forced to stand at rush hours not exceed the number who are seated by more than 20%.
Snoble argues that many bus lines nationally don't meet such a strict standard and that the MTA needs flexibility and latitude to occasionally break the load goals.
But Bliss has consistently held that the load limits must be strictly enforced.
Snoble said the huge bus agency deserves more credit for the progress most observers agree it has made and acknowledgment that his administration is aggressively addressing crowding issues since he arrived in October.
Bus Riders Union chief Mann, in contrast, said he's not about to negotiate, particularly over decisions repeatedly affirmed in court.
"They introduced the load factor idea in the first place, we didn't come up with it," Mann said outside MTA headquarters downtown. "Now they want to change? Come on. They want to throw the whole consent decree out the window."
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Jan 11th 7:51 AM
I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court will even hear the MTA's appeal.
[Much to John's credit, they didn't. --bennyp81]