MTA Warns of Downside to Upgrading Bus Fleet

Launching a new and aggressive line of attack, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority argued in a legal brief filed late Friday that compliance with a court order to buy hundreds of new buses threatens to deprive Los Angeles County residents of other highway and transit projects.

The MTA contends that court-appointed Special Master Donald T. Bliss exceeded his authority by ordering the transit agency to buy 532 new natural-gas powered buses to relieve chronic overcrowding and improve bus service.

Bliss ruled last month that the agency failed to comply with a consent decree it signed with bus rider advocates in October 1996, which requires reductions in the number of passengers forced to stand on MTA buses during peak periods.

The MTA said in its legal brief filed with the special master that the price tag for compliance over six years is so high that it would “threaten to incapacitate the operations of the entire agency.” And the agency contends that Bliss overestimated the number of buses needed by several hundred.

Stung by the sweeping scope of the order, the MTA board decided in closed session last month to ask Bliss to clarify and modify the directive, but stopped short of an outright appeal.

But in the latest filing, the MTA signaled that if Bliss does not modify his order, the agency will appeal to U.S. District Judge Terrence Hatter. Such a strategy could prove risky since Hatter presided over the case, approving the signing of the consent decree and the selection of Bliss.

The MTA contends the special master only has the authority to make recommendations to the federal court, not to issue orders.

“The consent decree does not give the special master the authority to take away the MTA’s right to manage its resources for the maximum public good, nor to direct the MTA to order and put in service a specific number, type and age of buses within a specific period,” the brief said. “The special master is not permitted to fashion his own plan for meeting targets, much less ‘order’ it performed.”

The MTA argues that the special master’s action is so extreme that it wrests control of the transit agency from its board and management.

“At its extreme you could have the federal court system over a long period of time telling us what to do,” said MTA Chief Executive Julian Burke.

Mounting its new strategy with a new team of lawyers, the agency told Bliss that it will cost more than $950 million over the next six years to comply with the consent decree. The figure includes the cost of buying and operating the buses ordered by Bliss, plus other improvements to the bus system that the MTA has planned.

The amount is so large that MTA directors fear it will take a big bite out of other road, highway and transit projects, particularly any future rail lines.

Burke said that if the order stands, the MTA will have to take another look at how it has allocated resources, potentially threatening funds for a light rail line to Pasadena, the Alameda Corridor project, numerous local street and road projects as well as maintenance of existing subway and rail lines.

The MTA’s approach broadens the historic bus versus rail debate that has defined transit battles in Los Angeles for years. The agency’s argument essentially pits bus riders against both rail riders and motorists.

“The special master’s recommendations would impact every aspect of the MTA’s operations for years to come, adversely affecting its entire short- and long-range planning efforts,” according to the brief. “His added burdens overemphasize the MTA bus operation at the expense of its highway and rail obligations.

“The special master must consider that every dollar spent by the MTA in trying to comply with the consent decree is a dollar taken away from other transportation programs.”

The MTA signed the consent decree to avoid a trial on a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Bus Riders Union. The case alleged that the MTA discriminated against poor and minority bus riders by pouring resources into the massive subway and light rail construction program.

The decree required that the MTA have no more than 15 standing passengers on its buses by the end of 1997, a target the agency admitted that it failed to reach. The figure becomes tougher over time, dropping to 11 by June 30, 2000, and nine by June 30, 2002.

The MTA argues that before the order was issued it had embarked on a massive program to buy 2,095 new buses over the six-year period to replace most of its aging and breakdown-prone fleet. The agency also is in the process of converting its troubled ethanol-powered buses to diesel. And plans call for installation of high-tech equipment to track bus movements in an effort to improve adherence to schedules. The agency also is operating many more hours of bus service each week.

Agency officials complain that it is impractical and tremendously expensive to be held to such strict standards on overcrowding. The MTA now contends that meeting the goals for reducing the number of standing riders will affect relatively few passengers but require a massive and unreasonable investment of public funds.

Attorneys for the bus riders will file their own brief later this month, responding to the MTA’s arguments.

Without having seen the MTA’s filing, civil rights lawyer Constance Rice said she anticipated that the agency would argue “all the reasons they can’t comply and all the reasons the special master exceeded his authority.”

But Rice said that Bliss’ remedy for the MTA’s failure to achieve the reductions in overcrowding is “squarely derived from the consent decree” and that there is nothing unclear about his order. “It is not excessive at all.”

Rice said the MTA board lacks the political will to make the hard choices to live up to the consent decree. “They don’t want to be told,” she said. “They don’t want to comply with their own agreement.”

The MTA claims to have made progress in improving and expanding bus service, a suggestion disputed by bus rider advocates. “The bus system is teetering on dysfunction,” Rice said.

In its brief, the MTA raised an array of other objections to the order. The agency argued that it is severely restricted in how it can use local, state and federal transportation funds and cannot devote them to buying and operating more buses.

The MTA also said no analysis has been done of the environmental impact of diverting money to buy new buses instead of spending it on other transportation improvements, including efforts to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution.