Meeting Deadline, MTA-Style

Everyone knows what it means to face a deadline. Some of us are good at it and some of us require prodding, frequently. At some point, the person in charge has to step in and demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that the deadline is not to be taken lightly. But there is little indication of the latter in the administration of the federal court consent decree that demanded that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority begin to reduce chronic overcrowding on its bus systems by Dec. 31, 1997.

Now, in mid-August of 1998 there is still no clear answer to whether the standard has been met. “This is the process the parties agreed to,” said an MTA spokesman. Well, the process is moving too darned slowly.

This might not grab the attention of the vast majority of Los Angeles County residents who can afford cars and trucks, but it ought to. You may lease or pay installments, but you also pay for the mass transit system that you don’t use, and it’s an expensive mess.

A key part of the MTA issue was a compelling argument that the agency had neglected the lower-income masses that use its buses (about 90% of all MTA riders) in favor of an inordinately expensive and problem-plagued rail system used by a very few. In a settlement last year, the MTA agreed to meet certain clear standards on its bus service, such as no more than 15 people having to stand on a bus.

Checking this is not advanced trigonometry. Just stay at a bus stop and count. That’s something that the special master in this case, Donald T. Bliss Jr., and all other parties should recognize. Instead, the MTA and its board members held a public relations blitz on Monday in front of some gleaming new buses and such. On Tuesday bus riders began a “No Asiento, No Pago”--”no seat, no fare”--campaign on buses throughout the city.

Here’s what’s needed: a definitive ruling, and soon, on whether the MTA was or is complying with the decree. Bliss needs to light a fire under the process. Without that, the deadlines have no meaning.