Getting MTA Out of a Jam

The first anniversary of the historic federal court decision ordering Los Angeles County to improve its bus system--the nation’s most crowded--is almost here, but don’t look for party decorations on MTA buses.

There is no room for them in the crush of passengers still jammed onto some buses.

“Things haven’t gotten better,” griped Herlinda Mejilla, a 50-year-old domestic worker who takes the bus from Hollywood to Santa Monica. “Almost every day the bus has been late. It’s always packed with people and sometimes it passes us by.”

Doing the right thing and using public transit in car-loving Los Angeles can still be an ordeal. Riders complain that buses are sometimes so crowded that they pass by waiting passengers without stopping. Graffiti etched into windows is so bad that it is sometimes difficult to see the street signs. Bus stops are often uninviting.

“We know we’re not where we need to be yet,” said Michelle Caldwell, MTA director of finance and administration for transit operations. “We recognize that we need to provide more reliable, more comfortable service for the passenger, and we’re doing everything we can as quickly as we can to make that happen.”

The Bus Riders Union, which won the consent decree last Oct. 28, disputes that the MTA is doing all it can.

“A year after this decree, we find business as usual at the MTA,” said Constance L. Rice, western regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The MTA asserts that it has complied with the decree and is moving to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for having no more than 15 passengers standing on buses during any 20-minute rush-hour period.

Closely watching is special master Donald Bliss, a Washington attorney appointed by U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. to oversee implementation of the decree.

*

If he finds the agency wanting, the MTA--already facing demands from Washington to get control of its finances and scale back its habit of promising more than it can deliver--could find itself in trouble with the federal court too.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys say that if the MTA fails to meet the deadline, the agency could be forced to shift money from other transit projects--including rail construction--for bus improvements. Should the special master find MTA not in compliance, he can recommend a course of action. If either side objects, they can appeal to Hatter, who can order the MTA to do whatever he thinks legally necessary. “We will do whatever we have to do to comply,” said Dana Woodbury, MTA deputy executive officer for operations planning and scheduling.

*

Officials are considering parking buses strategically throughout the county so they can be quickly pressed into service to replace any that break down. They also are arranging to lease buses from other transit operators if necessary.

The 28-page decree settled a civil rights lawsuit accusing the MTA of discriminating against poor and minority bus riders in order to build a classy rail system to serve more affluent suburban commuters.

The case was important to everyone--whether or not they ever ride the bus. Any increases in public transit use, which has declined in Los Angeles County from 1.7 million daily boardings in the mid-1980s to about 1.1 million today, could reduce traffic congestion.

Officials have estimated that the decree will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion over the next decade. The MTA has spent $2.8 million to pay for the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and $2.5 million more on its own legal bills.

A major cause of crowding and late buses, transit officials say, is the state of the fleet--one of the oldest in the nation, with 40% of the buses exceeding the recommended federal replacement age of 12 years. Problems also persist with the 329 ethanol-powered buses, one third of which are out of service on a typical day.

The MTA board recently voted to order 278 new buses--which will begin arriving late next year--and is moving to fix the ethanol problem.

An MTA spokesman said that Julian Burke, the agency’s interim chief executive officer, will present in early November his plan for improving bus service. Burke, who met last week with members of the Bus Riders Union, is a corporate turnaround specialist brought in by Mayor Richard Riordan to straighten out the agency’s finances.

“The gap between their vision of what they have to do and our vision is quite wide,” said Rice.

Both sides agree that bus riders have benefited in a big way from the decree. It saved the popular monthly pass, which MTA was seeking to eliminate, and reduced its price from $49 to $42. The MTA also recently established a late-night 75-cent discount fare, down from the $1.35 cash fare usually charged.

But Chris Mathis, a Bus Riders Union organizer, complained that the MTA is trying to “undermine the discount” by proposing to lower the commission paid to stores for selling passes and tokens, a move that the plaintiffs say would reduce the availability of the pass.

*

The plaintiffs contend that MTA failed to improve bus service. The MTA was required to put 51 more buses on the street by the end of last year and 51 by the end of last June.

Although the agency added 106 buses, the plaintiffs contend that the MTA counted new buses that were supposed to replace older ones and left the old ones in service.

“We don’t think the fleet has gotten 102 buses bigger because the [old] buses are breaking down all over the place,” said Eric Mann, director of the Labor/Community Strategy Center, of which the Bus Riders Union is a part.

MTA officials said that keeping older buses in service was the only way they could have met the deadline because it takes 18 months between a bus order and delivery.

But the plaintiffs complain that it took the MTA nearly a year after the decree was signed to order its first new buses. They say the MTA should have leased buses from other transit operators.

The decree also requires the MTA to establish a pilot project to add at least 50 more buses to help the transit-dependent reach educational, employment and health centers.

*

MTA officials say they only have enough money to put 50 more buses on the street by early next year. The plaintiffs want 150 more buses, saying the larger number is needed for an effective demonstration project.

The most critical bus issue facing the agency is the approaching Dec. 31 deadline for reducing crush loads.

Tom Rubin, former controller-treasurer for the Southern California Rapid Transit District, who acts as an advisor to the plaintiffs, said the MTA will come “nowhere close” to meeting the deadline.

The decree calls for reducing standees on buses to an average of 15 by Dec. 31, 11 by 2000 and nine by 2002. Officials stress that the numbers are an average over a 20-minute period during rush hour, so one bus can have 20 standees.

The MTA and the plaintiffs plan to deploy workers to count standees.

“I think the MTA has to decide if the entire bus system is worth at least as much as one rail line,” said Mann.

Woodbury acknowledged that if today were the deadline, the agency would not meet it.

“We clearly need to improve our performance,” he said. “We are committed to doing so.”

“We’ll see,” Rice said.

*

Staff writer Matea Gold contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Bus Riders Accord: A Year Later

Under a settlement worked out a year ago between the MTA and a coalition representing bus riders, the transit authority promised several things. Here is an update:

* Done: Maintain the current cash fare of $1.35 and 90-cent token for two years.

* Done: Continue the sale of monthly passes for three years, cutting the price from $49 to $42. Sell 15-day passes for $21 and a weekly pass for $11.

* Done: Cut off-peak fares to 75 cents on all lines.

* Disputed: Add 102 buses by the end of June.

* Planned: Add 50 buses on heavily used lines in the next two years to improve access by those dependent of public transit to travel to destinations such as medical facilities, job sites and vocational schools.