DASH Bus Pacts OKd by City Council

In the end, it came down to a simple question: Whom do you believe?

Should the City Council rely on its Department of Transportation to recommend contractors for multimillion-dollar community shuttle bus services? Or should it listen to the teams of lobbyists that descended on City Hall?

It was a tough call for the 13 council members present Wednesday, all of whom spoke, some at length, about the contracts.

But finally the council split the difference. One set of contracts was returned to a committee--there weren’t enough votes to trust the transportation staff--and two others were approved.

At issue were three sets of five-year contracts--totaling more than $45 million--designed to provide Community DASH shuttle bus services to several areas of the city, including four that have never had the service. The northeast San Fernando Valley will be among those getting its first shuttle service.

For a change, the routes of the low-cost service weren’t the controversial item for the if-you-get-it-I-want-it council. It was the Department of Transportation, which rejected the lowest bidders in favor of other contractors, at least one of whom had maintenance and safety problems.

It may have helped, too, that the contractors hired big-gun City Hall lobbyists to help them secure the bids.

“I think the City Council as a political entity has to be very careful and thoughtful when we go over the heads of our expert staff . . . to award these lucrative contracts,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick, who typically prefers to rely on staff recommendations.

Others, particularly those on the opposite side, view it differently.

“There’s a strong predisposition on this council to take staff recommendations,” said Steve Afriat, a top City Hall lobbyist who represented Laidlaw Transit Co., a bus contractor that lost Wednesday.

But the council also has a strong predisposition toward patronage--and constituents.

Scores of South-Central residents, pastors and others rallied in support of one of the local contractors rejected by the transportation staff, although it was the lowest bidder. That contract was returned to the council’s transportation committee for further review.

One by one, these residents--including an 84-year-old bus rider--rose to urge the council to support the APT bus company, whom they said had a proven track record of providing good service and hiring local residents.

Then it was the company’s lobbyists turn.

John Harris said after the meeting that he represented only the APT and that he did not ask the residents to come before the council, but he said they definitely helped the cause.

“We didn’t script them, we didn’t tell them to say anything,” Harris said after the council vote. “I couldn’t have written better speeches.”

It’s perhaps only a little coincidental that the other lobbyist on the team is Lou Collier, a former transportation aide to Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas.

And what action did Ridley-Thomas take on behalf of his constituents? When he finally spoke publicly after working the chamber, Ridley-Thomas pushed the council to reconsider the contract in committee. It was a move welcomed by the APT representatives.

The two other contracts, however, were approved based on the staff’s recommendation. The result? Laidlaw Transit, which in years past had scores of bus contracts in the city, was left out although it was the lowest bidder.

The winner of that $17.4-million contract was Ryder/ATE, Inc. for the northeast Los Angeles and near Westside routes.

Coach USA was chosen to operate the $13.2-million San Fernando Valley routes.

At one point in the council debate, Councilman Richard Alarcon, who chairs the transportation committee, asked staff repeated questions about the safety and maintenance records of the bidders. During one particularly heated round, Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said to him: “Why don’t you badger him a little?” And Ruth Galanter chimed in: “Hit him again, Richard.”

But Alarcon said later that he was trying to show the serious problems he had with the staff’s recommendations and that he believed those issues needed more of a public airing.

In the end, Alarcon failed in his attempts to get the council to award the contracts to the lowest bidders.