MTA Postpones Decision on Purchasing Diesel-Fueled Buses : Transportation: Agency grapples with dilemma of buying more expensive but cleaner-running vehicles. It is looking into ones powered by liquefied natural gas.

So which kind of bus is it going to be: one that would please Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, or one that would bring a smile to the face of Ralph Kramden?

Transit officials weighed their options Thursday, trying to decide whether to purchase cleaner-running alternative fuel buses with a lesser-known track record or cheaper diesel vehicles that pollute more but run more reliably.

“You have the opportunity to say: Is money more important or do we want to pay extra for the environment?” said Rich Davis, director of equipment and advanced technology for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Facing a $258-million shortfall, transit officials grappled with the dilemma as environmentalists and regulators accused the agency of retreating from its goal of replacing its diesel fleet with buses powered by cleaner-burning fuels.

The choice is a classic one faced by environmentalists and regulators nationwide: How to tell a public agency during a time of scarce dollars that it ought to do the environmentally correct thing even if it costs several million dollars more for what may be an unproven or unreliable technology.

The agency’s staff recommended buying 245 so-called clean diesel buses and 50 liquefied natural gas-powered buses. An earlier plan called for the purchase of 304 methanol buses, which run relatively cleanly but break down about 75% more than their diesel counterparts.

After hearing two hours of testimony, MTA committee members took no action on purchasing the diesel buses and instead voiced support for alternative fuel buses. They unanimously postponed making a decision for 30 days and directed the MTA staff to provide more information about a relative newcomer on the alternative fuel scene: liquefied natural gas.

“We are committed to continuing our role as a leader in the alternative fuels area,” said MTA board member Evan Anderson Braude, a Long Beach councilman. “We know we have got to get clean air buses sooner or later somehow, and why not do it now if we can without the budget being too harshly attacked?”

Environmentalists, who held a press conference before the meeting to protest the MTA’s latest plan, claimed a partial victory.

“It was not a slam dunk, but it was real progress,” said Dennis Zane, executive director of Coalition for Clean Air.

Paul Weubben, clean fuels officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said he was pleased that the effort to purchase diesel buses had at least been delayed and possibly derailed.

“Today’s decision makes a line in the sand at which no further diesel buses will be purchased,” said Weubben, who conceded that no commitment had been made.

Smoke-spewing diesel buses elicit 2,000 air quality complaints each month. But transit officials--here and across the country--say they have not come up with a sure-fire alternative.

The MTA, which operates 345 methanol buses, runs the world’s largest alternative fuel fleet. Yet the methanol-powered buses break down frequently enough that MTA officials worry that they hamper efforts to provide reliable service.

Transit agencies in Houston, Seattle and Portland, Ore., are purchasing buses powered by liquefied natural gas, an alternative fuel that poses hassles in its handling because it needs to be stored cold in the equivalent of a large thermos bottle but promises to be less expensive than methanol, said Art Leahy, the MTA’s executive officer of operations.

But because so many other transit agencies are pursuing LNG, Leahy said, the costs for eliminating the problems could be spread among more agencies.