Post by bennyp81 on Jun 22, 2005 10:44:22 GMT -8
Steve
User ID: 7628823 Apr 20th 4:16 PM
hi, guys.
listen, i could use a bit of help. anyone have any idea if the BRU might be involved w/ this ...
Bay Area Bus Riders File Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit:
MTC Discriminates Against People of Color
SAN FRANCISCO -- Charging that the Bay Area's Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) maintains a "separate and unequal
transit system" that discriminates against poor transit riders of
color who use or depend on AC Transit bus service, a coalition of
organizations and individuals today filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court to order MTC to halt its
discriminatory funding practices.
"The Bay Area has two 'separate and unequal' transit systems: an
expanding state of the art rail system, Caltrain and BART, for
predominantly white, relatively affluent communities and a shrinking
bus system, AC Transit, for low-income people of color," explained
attorney Bill Lann Lee of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
who is representing the plaintiffs along with Public Advocates,
Inc., Communities for a Better Environment, and Altshuler, Berzon,
Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain. Mr. Lee is the former Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Justice Department.
"Fifty years after Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott,
poor people of color in the Bay Area are still fighting for a seat
on the bus," added Sylvia Darensburg, an African American single
mother of three in Oakland who, like many AC Transit riders, depends
completely on the bus service for all her family's transportation
needs.
"It's frustrating, and it's unfair," said Darensburg, a 45-year-
old medical administrator and Chabot College student. "Service has
gotten worse and worse for years. Buses used to run like clockwork.
Now, I have to ride two or three buses to get to work, and I've had
to turn down jobs I've been offered because I just can't get there.
Even something as simple as shopping for fresh groceries on my way
home from college classes requires me to take three buses, with long
waits in between."
AC Transit serves a population that is nearly 80% people of color;
BART and Caltrain, designed to serve white, suburban commuters, have
a much higher percentage of white riders. The racial disparity in
MTC transportation funding is not accidental, explained Linda Lye,
an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon. "As a result of MTC's knowingly
discriminatory funding practices, AC Transit riders receive a public
subsidy of only $2.78 per trip, BART passengers receive more than
double that -- $6.14 -- and Caltrain passengers receive $13.79,
nearly five times more than AC Transit riders."
"MTC is about to do it again as we speak," said Richard Marcantonio,
a managing attorney with Public Advocates, Inc. "They are planning
to distribute over $100 million in federal funds, with $20 million
of it going to public transit projects. Caltrain is getting more
than $9.2 million for four projects, and BART is getting $6.9
million for three projects. AC Transit is getting nothing."
"Bus projects are more cost-effective than rail," explained
Christine Zook, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, a
labor union that has many members who use or depend on AC Transit
for their transportation needs. "But by channeling the majority of
new funding to cost-ineffective rail projects, MTC not only limits
the pool of funds available to improve bus service, but starves the
existing bus system of operating funds."
MTC's own studies, dating as far back as 1979, concede that BART
does not serve "blue-collar employment and inner-city travel needs
of minorities." The inequity has only worsened since then. While
Caltrain and BART riders have historically enjoyed increasing
service, AC Transit riders have suffered service cuts, including
cuts to critical evening service, which for many AC Transit riders
provides the only means available for commuting to and from work or
school.
The federal lawsuit is necessary, plaintiffs say, as MTC has ignored
widespread public criticism of its discriminatory practices. "MTC is
in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding
disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact
on communities of color," explained Bill Lann Lee.
"The funding cuts have meant multiple rounds of service reduction,
reduced routes and decreased frequency of buses that impact bus
riders and particularly transit-dependent passengers," said A.J.
Napolis, Northern California Program Director of Communities for
a Better Environment. "As a result, riders lose jobs and job
opportunities since they can't get to work on time. They can't
shop for food or get to medical appointments, and students are
frequently late for school, if they can get there at all."
The plaintiffs in Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation
Commission are asking the U.S. District Court to declare the MTC
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
as well as federal and state civil rights laws. In addition, the
lawsuit asks the court to prohibit MTC from making decisions that
detract from the equitable funding of services benefiting AC Transit
riders. The plaintiffs are not requesting an award of damages.
The plaintiffs are AC Transit riders Sylvia Darensburg, Virginia
Martinez and Vivian Hain; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192;
and Communities for a Better Environment. The defendant is the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Joel C
User ID: 1084044 Apr 20th 4:34 PM
Is the ATU the Bay-Area equivalent of the UTU here? And why is the labor union suing on behalf of riders? This doesn't sound good.
I hope they don't spread to New York, or they'll want to start replacing the subways with busways!!!
John
User ID: 9921013 Apr 20th 6:26 PM
Hopefully, the court(s) will rule in favor of equity, requiring major improvements in bus service for San Francisco transit users/supporters.
Bart Reed
User ID: 9523443 Apr 20th 8:27 PM
The ATU is The Amalgamated Transit Union. It is the largest labor organization representing transit workers in the U.S. and Canada. Founded in
1892, the ATU, today, is comprised of over 180,000 members.
In the Oakland area ATU represents the operators at Oakland based A/C Transit, one of the largest bus only transit systems in Northern California.
Behind the scenes, A/C Transit has had a number of service cuts over the last few years to balance the budget. In this case, because of the drop in ATU members employed at A/C, the Union thinks they can help out. And keep the bus operator jobs.
In some cases the ATU has helped transit. I can point to the drastic situation in Chicago, where Sunday service is going to be imposed the other 6 days of the week to balance the budget. The ATU has been helpful lobbying elected officials to build transit up and educates elected officials.
While I was in Washington, DC in March, the ATU national lawyer invited me to the ATU reception. I got to meet a lot of the union leadership and I found that the ATU has fairly good labor relations at a lot of transit properties.
Now, Los Angeles is the exception to that. I got a good hour to speak to Neil Silver, President / Business Agent of Local 1277 who represents the METRO mechanics / cleaners and took his workers out for the last 5 week ATU/MTA strike. I have to say that I really enjoyed speaking to Neil. He has a tough job and he is probably one of the last of the old style labor leaders.
He firmly understands what his goals are and what position labor fills. He did tell me that ATU does not support the BRU, as he thinks they are a bunch of nuts. He did say ATU gave BRU money in 1996, but that was it.
Now, here is the official lawsuit press release:
Bay Area Bus Riders File Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit: MTC Discriminates Against People of Color
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2005--Charging that the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) maintains a "separate and unequal transit system" that discriminates against poor transit riders of color who use or depend on AC Transit bus service, a coalition of organizations and individuals today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court to order MTC to halt its discriminatory funding practices.
"The Bay Area has two 'separate and unequal' transit systems: an expanding state of the art rail system, Caltrain and BART, for predominantly white, relatively affluent communities and a shrinking bus system, AC Transit, for low-income people of color," explained attorney Bill Lann Lee of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, who is representing the plaintiffs along with Public Advocates, Inc., Communities for a Better Environment, and Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain. Mr. Lee is the former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Justice Department.
"Fifty years after Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, poor people of color in the Bay Area are still fighting for a seat on the bus," added Sylvia Darensburg, an African American single mother of three in Oakland who, like many AC Transit riders, depends completely on the bus service for all her family's transportation needs.
"It's frustrating, and it's unfair," said Darensburg, a 45-year-old medical administrator and Chabot College student. "Service has gotten worse and worse for years. Buses used to run like clockwork. Now, I have to ride two or three buses to get to work, and I've had to turn down jobs I've been offered because I just can't get there.
Even something as simple as shopping for fresh groceries on my way home from college classes requires me to take three buses, with long waits in between."
AC Transit serves a population that is nearly 80% people of color; BART and Caltrain, designed to serve white, suburban commuters, have a much higher percentage of white riders.
The racial disparity in MTC transportation funding is not accidental, explained Linda Lye, an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon. "As a result of MTC's knowingly discriminatory funding practices, AC Transit riders receive a public subsidy of only $2.78 per trip, BART passengers receive more than double that -- $6.14 -- and Caltrain passengers receive $13.79, nearly five times more than AC Transit riders."
"MTC is about to do it again as we speak," said Richard Marcantonio, a managing attorney with Public Advocates, Inc. "They are planning to distribute over $100 million in federal funds, with $20 million of it going to public transit projects. Caltrain is getting more than $9.2 million for four projects, and BART is getting $6.9 million for three projects. AC Transit is getting nothing."
"Bus projects are more cost-effective than rail," explained Christine Zook, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, a labor union that has many members who use or depend on AC Transit for their transportation needs.
"But by channeling the majority of new funding to cost-ineffective rail projects, MTC not only limits the pool of funds available to improve bus service, but starves the existing bus system of operating funds."
MTC's own studies, dating as far back as 1979, concede that BART does not serve "blue-collar employment and inner-city travel needs of minorities."
The inequity has only worsened since then. While Caltrain and BART riders have historically enjoyed increasing service, AC Transit riders have suffered service cuts, including cuts to critical evening service, which for many AC Transit riders provides the only means available for commuting to and from work or school.
The federal lawsuit is necessary, plaintiffs say, as MTC has ignored widespread public criticism of its discriminatory practices. "MTC is in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact on communities of color," explained Bill Lann Lee.
"The funding cuts have meant multiple rounds of service reduction, reduced routes and decreased frequency of buses that impact bus riders and particularly transit-dependent passengers," said A.J. Napolis, Northern California Program Director of Communities for a Better Environment. "As a result, riders lose jobs and job opportunities since they can't get to work on time. They can't shop for food or get to medical appointments, and students are frequently late for school, if they can get there at all."
The plaintiffs in Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission are asking the U.S. District Court to declare the MTC in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state civil rights laws.
In addition, the lawsuit asks the court to prohibit MTC from making decisions that detract from the equitable funding of services benefiting AC Transit riders. The plaintiffs are not requesting an award of damages.
The plaintiffs are AC Transit riders Sylvia Darensburg, Virginia Martinez and Vivian Hain; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192; and Communities for a Better Environment. The defendant is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
A copy of this press release can be obtained at www.lieffcabraser.com/media_center.htm.
Perhaps MTC will do their homework and see that this isn't a lawsuit they will really lose, should they fight it. When this same thing happened at MTA, Mayor Richard Reardon and CEO Joseph Drew got scared and signed the Consent Decree. The MTA was only required to put in a hard $20 million to close the deal. Instead, they chose an open ended option, which has cost LA over $1 billion over 10 years.
It is sad, but many times MTA makes the wrong decision. The Consent Decree is a perfect example. However, we are pretty lucky to have Don Bliss as the Special Master. I was able to meet with him in 2001. It was to be a 30 minute meeting that turned into a good 2+ hours. I was able to present Bliss with a White Paper that some to our team wrote (Saadi, Chris, Roger) and we have made a difference in showing Bliss that there is more than the BRU.
I should mention that Bliss is calling for public comment in the latest Consent Decree filing which is the BRU / MTA New Service Plan. The BRU asked for $250 million in service improvements. Bliss awarded $20 million only. His thrust is to correct the wrong headed way that MTA puts Rapid Bus service in with a revenue neutral approach.
This means local service is taxed (reduced) to get the hours to run the Rapid. In 2003 bus service on Van Nuys Blvd. was destroyed when MTA reduced Line 233 service from every 10 minutes to every 20 minutes to run Rapid Line 761. It caused so much overload that the Master ordered Line 233 back to 12 minute service.
Now with the New Service Plan, MTA can only cut 33% of local service when starting a Rapid.
Today, I spoke with the MTA Chief of Service Development Rod Goldman. He said that MTA still has to decide exactly what the Special Master has ordered and what MTA needs to do to respond.
You can see what the Bus Riders Union asked for:
thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm
and then you can see how Special Master replied:
thetransitcoalition.us/index.htm
Click on Proceeding Before Special Master Bliss.
He welcomes your comments.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Steve
User ID: 7628823 Apr 21st 11:08 AM
thank you, bart.
DaveK
User ID: 8541163 Apr 22nd 3:39 PM
Yes, thanks, Bart, for giving everyone the straight stuff on the Special Master. It has been very educational.
Elson
User ID: 1815634 Apr 22nd 7:07 PM
I read the article. A Bay Area BRU wouldn't do much harm since most of the rail system has already been built and the local governments are used to supporting those kind of projects anyway, so a BABRU opinion can't really sway the politicos there.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 9753653 Apr 23rd 2:08 AM
What seems strange is that the plaintiffs up there are citing the case down here. Since the MTA agreed to settle, doesn't that mean no precedent was set?
Bart Reed
User ID: 9523443 Apr 23rd 8:02 AM
Well, from the Plaintiff's Point of View, MTA agreed that our system was racist because we entered into the Consent Decree. The Plaintiff aledges "MTC is in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact on communities of color."
Yes, the East Bay has more residents of color than say San Jose, but the Plaintiffs are upset because Oakland's bus system is underfunded and the agency keeps making cuts. If wages and expenses at A/C Transit were 20% lower, then you would have money to pay for more expansive service. However, in the case of A/C Transit (and BART), the Board is elected and is fully in tune with Union needs, resulting in some of the best wage conditions in the transit industry.
So, one area the union and A/C Transit hasn't been able to tap is increased taxpayer subsidy. And, if you can't get more there, and you won't cut wages, you can only cut service. So, one more way to get money is to attack the rich MTC. Will they cave? Will they believe? More upcoming.
Þ--Þ--Þ
User ID: 7628823 Apr 20th 4:16 PM
hi, guys.
listen, i could use a bit of help. anyone have any idea if the BRU might be involved w/ this ...
Bay Area Bus Riders File Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit:
MTC Discriminates Against People of Color
SAN FRANCISCO -- Charging that the Bay Area's Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) maintains a "separate and unequal
transit system" that discriminates against poor transit riders of
color who use or depend on AC Transit bus service, a coalition of
organizations and individuals today filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court to order MTC to halt its
discriminatory funding practices.
"The Bay Area has two 'separate and unequal' transit systems: an
expanding state of the art rail system, Caltrain and BART, for
predominantly white, relatively affluent communities and a shrinking
bus system, AC Transit, for low-income people of color," explained
attorney Bill Lann Lee of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
who is representing the plaintiffs along with Public Advocates,
Inc., Communities for a Better Environment, and Altshuler, Berzon,
Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain. Mr. Lee is the former Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Justice Department.
"Fifty years after Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott,
poor people of color in the Bay Area are still fighting for a seat
on the bus," added Sylvia Darensburg, an African American single
mother of three in Oakland who, like many AC Transit riders, depends
completely on the bus service for all her family's transportation
needs.
"It's frustrating, and it's unfair," said Darensburg, a 45-year-
old medical administrator and Chabot College student. "Service has
gotten worse and worse for years. Buses used to run like clockwork.
Now, I have to ride two or three buses to get to work, and I've had
to turn down jobs I've been offered because I just can't get there.
Even something as simple as shopping for fresh groceries on my way
home from college classes requires me to take three buses, with long
waits in between."
AC Transit serves a population that is nearly 80% people of color;
BART and Caltrain, designed to serve white, suburban commuters, have
a much higher percentage of white riders. The racial disparity in
MTC transportation funding is not accidental, explained Linda Lye,
an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon. "As a result of MTC's knowingly
discriminatory funding practices, AC Transit riders receive a public
subsidy of only $2.78 per trip, BART passengers receive more than
double that -- $6.14 -- and Caltrain passengers receive $13.79,
nearly five times more than AC Transit riders."
"MTC is about to do it again as we speak," said Richard Marcantonio,
a managing attorney with Public Advocates, Inc. "They are planning
to distribute over $100 million in federal funds, with $20 million
of it going to public transit projects. Caltrain is getting more
than $9.2 million for four projects, and BART is getting $6.9
million for three projects. AC Transit is getting nothing."
"Bus projects are more cost-effective than rail," explained
Christine Zook, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, a
labor union that has many members who use or depend on AC Transit
for their transportation needs. "But by channeling the majority of
new funding to cost-ineffective rail projects, MTC not only limits
the pool of funds available to improve bus service, but starves the
existing bus system of operating funds."
MTC's own studies, dating as far back as 1979, concede that BART
does not serve "blue-collar employment and inner-city travel needs
of minorities." The inequity has only worsened since then. While
Caltrain and BART riders have historically enjoyed increasing
service, AC Transit riders have suffered service cuts, including
cuts to critical evening service, which for many AC Transit riders
provides the only means available for commuting to and from work or
school.
The federal lawsuit is necessary, plaintiffs say, as MTC has ignored
widespread public criticism of its discriminatory practices. "MTC is
in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding
disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact
on communities of color," explained Bill Lann Lee.
"The funding cuts have meant multiple rounds of service reduction,
reduced routes and decreased frequency of buses that impact bus
riders and particularly transit-dependent passengers," said A.J.
Napolis, Northern California Program Director of Communities for
a Better Environment. "As a result, riders lose jobs and job
opportunities since they can't get to work on time. They can't
shop for food or get to medical appointments, and students are
frequently late for school, if they can get there at all."
The plaintiffs in Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation
Commission are asking the U.S. District Court to declare the MTC
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
as well as federal and state civil rights laws. In addition, the
lawsuit asks the court to prohibit MTC from making decisions that
detract from the equitable funding of services benefiting AC Transit
riders. The plaintiffs are not requesting an award of damages.
The plaintiffs are AC Transit riders Sylvia Darensburg, Virginia
Martinez and Vivian Hain; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192;
and Communities for a Better Environment. The defendant is the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Joel C
User ID: 1084044 Apr 20th 4:34 PM
Is the ATU the Bay-Area equivalent of the UTU here? And why is the labor union suing on behalf of riders? This doesn't sound good.
I hope they don't spread to New York, or they'll want to start replacing the subways with busways!!!
John
User ID: 9921013 Apr 20th 6:26 PM
Hopefully, the court(s) will rule in favor of equity, requiring major improvements in bus service for San Francisco transit users/supporters.
Bart Reed
User ID: 9523443 Apr 20th 8:27 PM
The ATU is The Amalgamated Transit Union. It is the largest labor organization representing transit workers in the U.S. and Canada. Founded in
1892, the ATU, today, is comprised of over 180,000 members.
In the Oakland area ATU represents the operators at Oakland based A/C Transit, one of the largest bus only transit systems in Northern California.
Behind the scenes, A/C Transit has had a number of service cuts over the last few years to balance the budget. In this case, because of the drop in ATU members employed at A/C, the Union thinks they can help out. And keep the bus operator jobs.
In some cases the ATU has helped transit. I can point to the drastic situation in Chicago, where Sunday service is going to be imposed the other 6 days of the week to balance the budget. The ATU has been helpful lobbying elected officials to build transit up and educates elected officials.
While I was in Washington, DC in March, the ATU national lawyer invited me to the ATU reception. I got to meet a lot of the union leadership and I found that the ATU has fairly good labor relations at a lot of transit properties.
Now, Los Angeles is the exception to that. I got a good hour to speak to Neil Silver, President / Business Agent of Local 1277 who represents the METRO mechanics / cleaners and took his workers out for the last 5 week ATU/MTA strike. I have to say that I really enjoyed speaking to Neil. He has a tough job and he is probably one of the last of the old style labor leaders.
He firmly understands what his goals are and what position labor fills. He did tell me that ATU does not support the BRU, as he thinks they are a bunch of nuts. He did say ATU gave BRU money in 1996, but that was it.
Now, here is the official lawsuit press release:
Bay Area Bus Riders File Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit: MTC Discriminates Against People of Color
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2005--Charging that the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) maintains a "separate and unequal transit system" that discriminates against poor transit riders of color who use or depend on AC Transit bus service, a coalition of organizations and individuals today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court to order MTC to halt its discriminatory funding practices.
"The Bay Area has two 'separate and unequal' transit systems: an expanding state of the art rail system, Caltrain and BART, for predominantly white, relatively affluent communities and a shrinking bus system, AC Transit, for low-income people of color," explained attorney Bill Lann Lee of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, who is representing the plaintiffs along with Public Advocates, Inc., Communities for a Better Environment, and Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain. Mr. Lee is the former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Justice Department.
"Fifty years after Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, poor people of color in the Bay Area are still fighting for a seat on the bus," added Sylvia Darensburg, an African American single mother of three in Oakland who, like many AC Transit riders, depends completely on the bus service for all her family's transportation needs.
"It's frustrating, and it's unfair," said Darensburg, a 45-year-old medical administrator and Chabot College student. "Service has gotten worse and worse for years. Buses used to run like clockwork. Now, I have to ride two or three buses to get to work, and I've had to turn down jobs I've been offered because I just can't get there.
Even something as simple as shopping for fresh groceries on my way home from college classes requires me to take three buses, with long waits in between."
AC Transit serves a population that is nearly 80% people of color; BART and Caltrain, designed to serve white, suburban commuters, have a much higher percentage of white riders.
The racial disparity in MTC transportation funding is not accidental, explained Linda Lye, an attorney with Altshuler, Berzon. "As a result of MTC's knowingly discriminatory funding practices, AC Transit riders receive a public subsidy of only $2.78 per trip, BART passengers receive more than double that -- $6.14 -- and Caltrain passengers receive $13.79, nearly five times more than AC Transit riders."
"MTC is about to do it again as we speak," said Richard Marcantonio, a managing attorney with Public Advocates, Inc. "They are planning to distribute over $100 million in federal funds, with $20 million of it going to public transit projects. Caltrain is getting more than $9.2 million for four projects, and BART is getting $6.9 million for three projects. AC Transit is getting nothing."
"Bus projects are more cost-effective than rail," explained Christine Zook, President of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, a labor union that has many members who use or depend on AC Transit for their transportation needs.
"But by channeling the majority of new funding to cost-ineffective rail projects, MTC not only limits the pool of funds available to improve bus service, but starves the existing bus system of operating funds."
MTC's own studies, dating as far back as 1979, concede that BART does not serve "blue-collar employment and inner-city travel needs of minorities."
The inequity has only worsened since then. While Caltrain and BART riders have historically enjoyed increasing service, AC Transit riders have suffered service cuts, including cuts to critical evening service, which for many AC Transit riders provides the only means available for commuting to and from work or school.
The federal lawsuit is necessary, plaintiffs say, as MTC has ignored widespread public criticism of its discriminatory practices. "MTC is in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact on communities of color," explained Bill Lann Lee.
"The funding cuts have meant multiple rounds of service reduction, reduced routes and decreased frequency of buses that impact bus riders and particularly transit-dependent passengers," said A.J. Napolis, Northern California Program Director of Communities for a Better Environment. "As a result, riders lose jobs and job opportunities since they can't get to work on time. They can't shop for food or get to medical appointments, and students are frequently late for school, if they can get there at all."
The plaintiffs in Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission are asking the U.S. District Court to declare the MTC in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state civil rights laws.
In addition, the lawsuit asks the court to prohibit MTC from making decisions that detract from the equitable funding of services benefiting AC Transit riders. The plaintiffs are not requesting an award of damages.
The plaintiffs are AC Transit riders Sylvia Darensburg, Virginia Martinez and Vivian Hain; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192; and Communities for a Better Environment. The defendant is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
A copy of this press release can be obtained at www.lieffcabraser.com/media_center.htm.
Perhaps MTC will do their homework and see that this isn't a lawsuit they will really lose, should they fight it. When this same thing happened at MTA, Mayor Richard Reardon and CEO Joseph Drew got scared and signed the Consent Decree. The MTA was only required to put in a hard $20 million to close the deal. Instead, they chose an open ended option, which has cost LA over $1 billion over 10 years.
It is sad, but many times MTA makes the wrong decision. The Consent Decree is a perfect example. However, we are pretty lucky to have Don Bliss as the Special Master. I was able to meet with him in 2001. It was to be a 30 minute meeting that turned into a good 2+ hours. I was able to present Bliss with a White Paper that some to our team wrote (Saadi, Chris, Roger) and we have made a difference in showing Bliss that there is more than the BRU.
I should mention that Bliss is calling for public comment in the latest Consent Decree filing which is the BRU / MTA New Service Plan. The BRU asked for $250 million in service improvements. Bliss awarded $20 million only. His thrust is to correct the wrong headed way that MTA puts Rapid Bus service in with a revenue neutral approach.
This means local service is taxed (reduced) to get the hours to run the Rapid. In 2003 bus service on Van Nuys Blvd. was destroyed when MTA reduced Line 233 service from every 10 minutes to every 20 minutes to run Rapid Line 761. It caused so much overload that the Master ordered Line 233 back to 12 minute service.
Now with the New Service Plan, MTA can only cut 33% of local service when starting a Rapid.
Today, I spoke with the MTA Chief of Service Development Rod Goldman. He said that MTA still has to decide exactly what the Special Master has ordered and what MTA needs to do to respond.
You can see what the Bus Riders Union asked for:
thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm
and then you can see how Special Master replied:
thetransitcoalition.us/index.htm
Click on Proceeding Before Special Master Bliss.
He welcomes your comments.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Steve
User ID: 7628823 Apr 21st 11:08 AM
thank you, bart.
DaveK
User ID: 8541163 Apr 22nd 3:39 PM
Yes, thanks, Bart, for giving everyone the straight stuff on the Special Master. It has been very educational.
Elson
User ID: 1815634 Apr 22nd 7:07 PM
I read the article. A Bay Area BRU wouldn't do much harm since most of the rail system has already been built and the local governments are used to supporting those kind of projects anyway, so a BABRU opinion can't really sway the politicos there.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 9753653 Apr 23rd 2:08 AM
What seems strange is that the plaintiffs up there are citing the case down here. Since the MTA agreed to settle, doesn't that mean no precedent was set?
Bart Reed
User ID: 9523443 Apr 23rd 8:02 AM
Well, from the Plaintiff's Point of View, MTA agreed that our system was racist because we entered into the Consent Decree. The Plaintiff aledges "MTC is in violation of federal and state civil rights laws as its funding disparities have a purposeful and unjustified discriminatory impact on communities of color."
Yes, the East Bay has more residents of color than say San Jose, but the Plaintiffs are upset because Oakland's bus system is underfunded and the agency keeps making cuts. If wages and expenses at A/C Transit were 20% lower, then you would have money to pay for more expansive service. However, in the case of A/C Transit (and BART), the Board is elected and is fully in tune with Union needs, resulting in some of the best wage conditions in the transit industry.
So, one area the union and A/C Transit hasn't been able to tap is increased taxpayer subsidy. And, if you can't get more there, and you won't cut wages, you can only cut service. So, one more way to get money is to attack the rich MTC. Will they cave? Will they believe? More upcoming.
Þ--Þ--Þ