Post by bennyp81 on Jun 22, 2005 7:00:01 GMT -8
Numan B. Parada
User ID: 8736803 Mar 19th [2002] 8:53 PM
Hi everyone.
Just a curiosity: Is there a way one can actually cancel the Consent Decree?
EC
User ID: 9621663 Mar 19th 11:00 PM
I dont believe so (someone please correct me if I am wrong)
The problem is that the MTA settled out of court with the BRU and even if they could break it the BRU would just sue them for breach of contract.
It seems the MTA was silly to ever agree to it in the first place. Thank goodness the new MTA leadership has there head on straight.
Hopefully, they will divert funds from elsewhere or find another way around it.
Ray
User ID: 0471064 Mar 19th 11:54 PM
I am hopeful that the MTA finds ways to satisfy the BRU while finding ways to keep infrastructure projects moving forward. Might these two parties settle out of court? Buses and rail both have a role... but as our CEO has explained - they are different roles.
The Gold Line project funding was placed in the hands of a joint powers authority - and as a result that budget is untouchable. Why? The state acknowledged the appeals from municipalities that the project was needed and wanted it done! Maybe this offers a way out.
I suggested elsewhere that Caltrans take on infrastructure development and turn over the assets over to MTA to operate once built.
Another suggested that a new westide agency be formed to build and operate the Expo line. I like that too!
How do you get around a consent decree? That's one for the lawyers. Seems that after the Supreme Court the MTA might have to suck it up and live with their signature... meanwhile I hope they have the courage and foresight to find a way to pass the baton so projects move forward.
A senseless obstacle.
Numan B. Parada
User ID: 9216993 Apr 10th 11:42 AM
Well, this article should provide some hope (mind you, SOME). It's from today's Daily News Editorial:
End of an era
The year is 1974.
Richard Nixon resigns from the presidency. Muhammad Ali defeats George Foreman in the "Rumble in the Jungle." Barbra Streisand tops the charts with "The Way We Were."
And the federal government slaps the Los Angeles Fire Department with a consent decree mandating the hiring of more minority employees.
On Monday, a federal judge finally revoked that consent decree -- nearly three full decades after it took effect.
In the meantime, Nixon died. Ali became a legend, and Foreman became a kitchen-appliance pitchman. Streisand now pines more than ever for the way she was.
Consent decrees don't die easily.
Also during that time, the LAFD saw minorities in its firefighter population go from 5 percent to more than 50 percent. That's an impressive turnaround, but one that came at the cost of a quota system that has long since outlived whatever usefulness it may have once had.
While no one wants to return to "the way we were" back in the old-boy days of the LAFD, six U.S. presidents later it's good to see the city regain control over at least one of its basic municipal functions.
To think, just another 27 years, and L.A. residents might control the rest of their government, too.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0373644 Apr 10th 2:31 PM
The good news about this ill-advised Consent Decree is that it expires in a few years--and hopefully, it can somehow just go away.
And maybe Eric Mann and his BRU cronies can go away,too.
Or maybe they won't go away--they'll just be screaming uselessly in the dark with no one to listen to them.
Matt Kelly
User ID: 0617234 Apr 10th 3:37 PM
When does the Consent Decree expire?
Roger Rudick
User ID: 0443584 Apr 10th 3:40 PM
Someone suggested at one of the meetings that we call up his backers and ask to meet with them. I don't think their backers had screwing over poor minorities in mind when they gave to the BRU.
R
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0373644 Apr 10th 4:47 PM
Roger--You are absolutely right! Does anyone (Bart, maybe) know who his corporate sponsors are so we can write or otherwise contact them and let them know how reckless the leadership of the BRU now is?
I'd love to let Eric Mann's corporate sponsors know what they're "getting" for their money!
Mark Strickert
User ID: 1613614 Apr 10th 4:56 PM
All the more reason to tell them about how BRU actions hurt everyone, including poor minorities, "thanks" to slower service (less rail), less service to fringe areas (where the work often is), and les service outside of peak times.
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 10th 6:41 PM
I find it very interesting that the MTA's bus service has so markedly improved in the last year or two.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0923684 Apr 10th 11:03 PM
John--As a devoted bus/rail rider who appreciates the need for good service on both aspects of transit, writing the right folks about how the MTA is trying (but perhaps not enough yet!) to fix things might be a good idea.
It's quite clear that the MTA needs to clear up its act, and we can certainly help facilitate that process, but for any one group--the BRU or anyone else--to overly dominate the process will undermine the continuing efforts of the MTA to help fulfill its necessary functions.
cool_studio_man
User ID: 9467593 Jul 25th 9:32 PM
Bus Overcrowding
By ALEX DOBUZINSKIS
City News Service
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Seven out of 10 MTA bus riders said the agency is improving bus service and 78 percent of them gave the agency positive marks for the availability of seats, according to a study released today.
"We're encouraged that our customers are responding positively to the massive bus improvements MTA has delivered in the past six years, but we clearly have areas where we need to improve," said Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Roger Snoble.
The results, based on a poll of 35,000 bus riders between June and December last year, goes against the claims of the Bus Riders Union, one of the agency's biggest critics.
At an MTA board meeting today, members of the activist group told the board that the agency is failing to live up to a consent decree on bus overcrowding. The transit agency entered into the court-sanctioned agreement in 1996 to settle a lawsuit filed by the BRU and other groups.
The final requirement of the consent decree took effect July 1; it mandates that buses have no more than eight or nine people standing, depending on the size of the bus.
"There are more than eight people standing on buses in Los Angeles," Hee Pok Kim, a BRU member from Koreatown said, addressing the board via a translator.
Kim said she rides the bus often and documents overcrowding with photographs.
Members of the group hand out leaflets to bus riders, asking them to help them keep track of overcrowding. BRU plans to submit evidence of overcrowding to the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree, said Eric Mann of the BRU.
The MTA's survey, however, found that in addition to the 78 percent of respondents who rated the agency "fair," "good" or "very good" for seat availability, the agency also did well in other areas.
Seventy-six percent of respondents rated the agency in one of the top three categories for frequency of service. The ratings were in five categories, the bottom two being "poor" or "very poor."
Sixty-six percent of respondents rated the MTA in one of the top two categories for bus safety and 67 percent rated it in one of the same two categories for route convenience.
Mann, speaking for the BRU, said that according to the group's measures of bus overcrowding, 75 of the agency's 78 most heavily traveled lines are not in compliance with the consent decree. Mann said the MTA should expand its bus fleet by 235-250 buses.
As part of the consent decree, BRU members are trained by the MTA to measure bus overcrowding and the findings are submitted to the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree along with MTA data, Cynthia Rojas of the BRU said last week.
The MTA contends that expanding the bus fleet on the busiest lines, such as those along Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, the buses will just add to traffic congestion.
"We almost have wall-to-wall buses during rush hours. Adding more buses ... is going to make the problem worse," said Marc Littman of the MTA.
Special Master Donald Bliss, the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree, started this week to re-examine the MTA's compliance with the decree. CNS-07-25-2002 17:07
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 25th 11:08 PM
I think far more than 250 buses should be added to the MTA's fleet. In my view, more and more buses should be added until there are more buses than automobiles on the streets.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Jul 26th 1:39 PM
Time to translate BRU into English:
250 buses = $75,000,000/year to operate or 3/4 of a billion dollars over 10 years.
250 buses = $75,000,000 to purchase.
Federal / State Capital Grant Lead Time: 2 to 3 years.
Bus Manufacturer Lead Time: 2 years.
Operating Funding: $75,000,000 per year, Funding Source: Unknown new tax source and a fare increase.
Operator Training: 2 years or more. Requires at least 600 Operators.
MTA Facilities: 3 years or more to take property and build a new facility and EIR/EIS reviews, plus Capital Funding.
So: BRU Suggestion: Pipe Dream
By the way, MTA is in the process of placing an order for 200 Articulated 60' buses.
200 Articulated Buses = Capacity of 300 40' standard buses. BRU opposes this. Why?
The Gold Line opens in June 2003. The 24 Gold Line Light Rail vehicles offer over 1,800 new seats per hour. This is the equivalent of adding 48 buses. And also, there will be a whole new set of buses to feed the Gold Line.
From the preliminary information I have, MTA is going to announce an increase in the span of service of all rail lines until 2 a.m.
This is MTA running transit, not BRU ill informed demands.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 26th 9:15 PM
I see no reason why funding for more buses should be a problem. Gas prices could be raised significantly, as well as car prices and sales taxes on all automobile-related products and services: with all of the proceeds going to pay for new buses. Hefty tolls could also be imposed on automobile drivers at all freeway entrances and interchanges, etc., with this revenue also going to pay for the new buses.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Aug 8th 11:57 PM
Bart, is what you are saying true? MTA will buy artics? It's a dream come true.
I got the ball rolling 5 years ago. When I was with the Southern California Transit Advocates, I persuaded the group to take a position to support artics for the MTA. There is a study in the MTA library about artics that I wrote.
Not to boast too much, but... :>
You have to understand that the BRU would oppose artics because it doesn't create as many driving jobs. This is a big concern. Just search "Eric Mann" (with quotes) in Google to see why.
Gerald Johnson
User ID: 9398453 Aug 9th 1:23 AM
Chris,
If you go to the MTA homepage and type "articulated buses for LA", it will bring up an article that appeared in the May edition of "Scoop", the MTA newsletter which addressed the MTA plan to purchase 200 artics, scheduled to debut on LA streets by 2005.
gerald
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Aug 11th 2:49 PM
Actually I spoke with Richard Hunt on Friday. MTA has Requests for Proposals / Bids out for 272 artics. These bid proposals are due back in the next 30 days. Approval to buy should be before the Board of Directors by October or November.
Richard Hunt mentioned start of delivery by late 2003 or early 2004. With the opening of the Gold Line next June and the new artics coming, MTA will have a record number of seats available for the riders.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Ray Bianco
User ID: 0471064 Sep 28th 5:46 PM
Need a reason to get rid of the consent decree... Here's a recent look at the hard numberes from the MTA auditors on the cost of the decree:
ISSUE
The MTA has expended significant sums to comply with the Consent Decree. To guide future policy decisions the Directors should evaluate the cost/benefit of these expenditures. To facilitate this evaluation the Chief Executive Officer requested Management Audit Services to prepare a report summarizing Consent Decree costs to date.
DISCUSSION
As of June 30, 2002, the MTA has spent almost $621 million to comply with the Consent Decree. With current annual costs approaching $110 million, it is expected that by the end of the Consent Decree term in November 2006 the MTA will have expended over $1 billion. This is without any further additional buses or extraordinary costs which may be ordered by the Special Master.
Operating costs, currently almost $93 million per year, have totaled over $317 million in the 6 fiscal years the Consent Decree has been in effect. Over this time period, capital expenditures for the required additional 580 buses totaled almost $199 million. Despite these expenditures, bus ridership has increased less than 3% annually during this time period. During this same time period, the MTA replaced the majority of its bus fleet at a total cost of over $625 million.
The Consent Decree directed a reduction in fares during off-peak periods and a reduction in the prices of monthly and semi-monthly passes. Over this time period, this fare reduction totaled over $47 million.
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 28th 7:14 PM
I still see far more cars on the streets than buses.
User ID: 8736803 Mar 19th [2002] 8:53 PM
Hi everyone.
Just a curiosity: Is there a way one can actually cancel the Consent Decree?
EC
User ID: 9621663 Mar 19th 11:00 PM
I dont believe so (someone please correct me if I am wrong)
The problem is that the MTA settled out of court with the BRU and even if they could break it the BRU would just sue them for breach of contract.
It seems the MTA was silly to ever agree to it in the first place. Thank goodness the new MTA leadership has there head on straight.
Hopefully, they will divert funds from elsewhere or find another way around it.
Ray
User ID: 0471064 Mar 19th 11:54 PM
I am hopeful that the MTA finds ways to satisfy the BRU while finding ways to keep infrastructure projects moving forward. Might these two parties settle out of court? Buses and rail both have a role... but as our CEO has explained - they are different roles.
The Gold Line project funding was placed in the hands of a joint powers authority - and as a result that budget is untouchable. Why? The state acknowledged the appeals from municipalities that the project was needed and wanted it done! Maybe this offers a way out.
I suggested elsewhere that Caltrans take on infrastructure development and turn over the assets over to MTA to operate once built.
Another suggested that a new westide agency be formed to build and operate the Expo line. I like that too!
How do you get around a consent decree? That's one for the lawyers. Seems that after the Supreme Court the MTA might have to suck it up and live with their signature... meanwhile I hope they have the courage and foresight to find a way to pass the baton so projects move forward.
A senseless obstacle.
Numan B. Parada
User ID: 9216993 Apr 10th 11:42 AM
Well, this article should provide some hope (mind you, SOME). It's from today's Daily News Editorial:
End of an era
The year is 1974.
Richard Nixon resigns from the presidency. Muhammad Ali defeats George Foreman in the "Rumble in the Jungle." Barbra Streisand tops the charts with "The Way We Were."
And the federal government slaps the Los Angeles Fire Department with a consent decree mandating the hiring of more minority employees.
On Monday, a federal judge finally revoked that consent decree -- nearly three full decades after it took effect.
In the meantime, Nixon died. Ali became a legend, and Foreman became a kitchen-appliance pitchman. Streisand now pines more than ever for the way she was.
Consent decrees don't die easily.
Also during that time, the LAFD saw minorities in its firefighter population go from 5 percent to more than 50 percent. That's an impressive turnaround, but one that came at the cost of a quota system that has long since outlived whatever usefulness it may have once had.
While no one wants to return to "the way we were" back in the old-boy days of the LAFD, six U.S. presidents later it's good to see the city regain control over at least one of its basic municipal functions.
To think, just another 27 years, and L.A. residents might control the rest of their government, too.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0373644 Apr 10th 2:31 PM
The good news about this ill-advised Consent Decree is that it expires in a few years--and hopefully, it can somehow just go away.
And maybe Eric Mann and his BRU cronies can go away,too.
Or maybe they won't go away--they'll just be screaming uselessly in the dark with no one to listen to them.
Matt Kelly
User ID: 0617234 Apr 10th 3:37 PM
When does the Consent Decree expire?
Roger Rudick
User ID: 0443584 Apr 10th 3:40 PM
And maybe Eric Mann and his BRU cronies can go away,too.
Someone suggested at one of the meetings that we call up his backers and ask to meet with them. I don't think their backers had screwing over poor minorities in mind when they gave to the BRU.
R
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0373644 Apr 10th 4:47 PM
Roger--You are absolutely right! Does anyone (Bart, maybe) know who his corporate sponsors are so we can write or otherwise contact them and let them know how reckless the leadership of the BRU now is?
I'd love to let Eric Mann's corporate sponsors know what they're "getting" for their money!
Mark Strickert
User ID: 1613614 Apr 10th 4:56 PM
I don't think their backers had screwing over poor minorities in mind when they gave to the BRU.
All the more reason to tell them about how BRU actions hurt everyone, including poor minorities, "thanks" to slower service (less rail), less service to fringe areas (where the work often is), and les service outside of peak times.
John
User ID: 9510053 Apr 10th 6:41 PM
I find it very interesting that the MTA's bus service has so markedly improved in the last year or two.
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0923684 Apr 10th 11:03 PM
John--As a devoted bus/rail rider who appreciates the need for good service on both aspects of transit, writing the right folks about how the MTA is trying (but perhaps not enough yet!) to fix things might be a good idea.
It's quite clear that the MTA needs to clear up its act, and we can certainly help facilitate that process, but for any one group--the BRU or anyone else--to overly dominate the process will undermine the continuing efforts of the MTA to help fulfill its necessary functions.
cool_studio_man
User ID: 9467593 Jul 25th 9:32 PM
Bus Overcrowding
By ALEX DOBUZINSKIS
City News Service
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Seven out of 10 MTA bus riders said the agency is improving bus service and 78 percent of them gave the agency positive marks for the availability of seats, according to a study released today.
"We're encouraged that our customers are responding positively to the massive bus improvements MTA has delivered in the past six years, but we clearly have areas where we need to improve," said Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Roger Snoble.
The results, based on a poll of 35,000 bus riders between June and December last year, goes against the claims of the Bus Riders Union, one of the agency's biggest critics.
At an MTA board meeting today, members of the activist group told the board that the agency is failing to live up to a consent decree on bus overcrowding. The transit agency entered into the court-sanctioned agreement in 1996 to settle a lawsuit filed by the BRU and other groups.
The final requirement of the consent decree took effect July 1; it mandates that buses have no more than eight or nine people standing, depending on the size of the bus.
"There are more than eight people standing on buses in Los Angeles," Hee Pok Kim, a BRU member from Koreatown said, addressing the board via a translator.
Kim said she rides the bus often and documents overcrowding with photographs.
Members of the group hand out leaflets to bus riders, asking them to help them keep track of overcrowding. BRU plans to submit evidence of overcrowding to the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree, said Eric Mann of the BRU.
The MTA's survey, however, found that in addition to the 78 percent of respondents who rated the agency "fair," "good" or "very good" for seat availability, the agency also did well in other areas.
Seventy-six percent of respondents rated the agency in one of the top three categories for frequency of service. The ratings were in five categories, the bottom two being "poor" or "very poor."
Sixty-six percent of respondents rated the MTA in one of the top two categories for bus safety and 67 percent rated it in one of the same two categories for route convenience.
Mann, speaking for the BRU, said that according to the group's measures of bus overcrowding, 75 of the agency's 78 most heavily traveled lines are not in compliance with the consent decree. Mann said the MTA should expand its bus fleet by 235-250 buses.
As part of the consent decree, BRU members are trained by the MTA to measure bus overcrowding and the findings are submitted to the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree along with MTA data, Cynthia Rojas of the BRU said last week.
The MTA contends that expanding the bus fleet on the busiest lines, such as those along Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, the buses will just add to traffic congestion.
"We almost have wall-to-wall buses during rush hours. Adding more buses ... is going to make the problem worse," said Marc Littman of the MTA.
Special Master Donald Bliss, the federal arbitrator overseeing the consent decree, started this week to re-examine the MTA's compliance with the decree. CNS-07-25-2002 17:07
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 25th 11:08 PM
I think far more than 250 buses should be added to the MTA's fleet. In my view, more and more buses should be added until there are more buses than automobiles on the streets.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Jul 26th 1:39 PM
Time to translate BRU into English:
250 buses = $75,000,000/year to operate or 3/4 of a billion dollars over 10 years.
250 buses = $75,000,000 to purchase.
Federal / State Capital Grant Lead Time: 2 to 3 years.
Bus Manufacturer Lead Time: 2 years.
Operating Funding: $75,000,000 per year, Funding Source: Unknown new tax source and a fare increase.
Operator Training: 2 years or more. Requires at least 600 Operators.
MTA Facilities: 3 years or more to take property and build a new facility and EIR/EIS reviews, plus Capital Funding.
So: BRU Suggestion: Pipe Dream
By the way, MTA is in the process of placing an order for 200 Articulated 60' buses.
200 Articulated Buses = Capacity of 300 40' standard buses. BRU opposes this. Why?
The Gold Line opens in June 2003. The 24 Gold Line Light Rail vehicles offer over 1,800 new seats per hour. This is the equivalent of adding 48 buses. And also, there will be a whole new set of buses to feed the Gold Line.
From the preliminary information I have, MTA is going to announce an increase in the span of service of all rail lines until 2 a.m.
This is MTA running transit, not BRU ill informed demands.
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Jul 26th 9:15 PM
I see no reason why funding for more buses should be a problem. Gas prices could be raised significantly, as well as car prices and sales taxes on all automobile-related products and services: with all of the proceeds going to pay for new buses. Hefty tolls could also be imposed on automobile drivers at all freeway entrances and interchanges, etc., with this revenue also going to pay for the new buses.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Aug 8th 11:57 PM
Bart, is what you are saying true? MTA will buy artics? It's a dream come true.
I got the ball rolling 5 years ago. When I was with the Southern California Transit Advocates, I persuaded the group to take a position to support artics for the MTA. There is a study in the MTA library about artics that I wrote.
Not to boast too much, but... :>
You have to understand that the BRU would oppose artics because it doesn't create as many driving jobs. This is a big concern. Just search "Eric Mann" (with quotes) in Google to see why.
Gerald Johnson
User ID: 9398453 Aug 9th 1:23 AM
Chris,
If you go to the MTA homepage and type "articulated buses for LA", it will bring up an article that appeared in the May edition of "Scoop", the MTA newsletter which addressed the MTA plan to purchase 200 artics, scheduled to debut on LA streets by 2005.
gerald
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Aug 11th 2:49 PM
Actually I spoke with Richard Hunt on Friday. MTA has Requests for Proposals / Bids out for 272 artics. These bid proposals are due back in the next 30 days. Approval to buy should be before the Board of Directors by October or November.
Richard Hunt mentioned start of delivery by late 2003 or early 2004. With the opening of the Gold Line next June and the new artics coming, MTA will have a record number of seats available for the riders.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Ray Bianco
User ID: 0471064 Sep 28th 5:46 PM
Need a reason to get rid of the consent decree... Here's a recent look at the hard numberes from the MTA auditors on the cost of the decree:
ISSUE
The MTA has expended significant sums to comply with the Consent Decree. To guide future policy decisions the Directors should evaluate the cost/benefit of these expenditures. To facilitate this evaluation the Chief Executive Officer requested Management Audit Services to prepare a report summarizing Consent Decree costs to date.
DISCUSSION
As of June 30, 2002, the MTA has spent almost $621 million to comply with the Consent Decree. With current annual costs approaching $110 million, it is expected that by the end of the Consent Decree term in November 2006 the MTA will have expended over $1 billion. This is without any further additional buses or extraordinary costs which may be ordered by the Special Master.
Operating costs, currently almost $93 million per year, have totaled over $317 million in the 6 fiscal years the Consent Decree has been in effect. Over this time period, capital expenditures for the required additional 580 buses totaled almost $199 million. Despite these expenditures, bus ridership has increased less than 3% annually during this time period. During this same time period, the MTA replaced the majority of its bus fleet at a total cost of over $625 million.
The Consent Decree directed a reduction in fares during off-peak periods and a reduction in the prices of monthly and semi-monthly passes. Over this time period, this fare reduction totaled over $47 million.
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 28th 7:14 PM
I still see far more cars on the streets than buses.