The flood of MTA change proposals pursued by the various sectors may call for a change in the way we prepare positions. Maybe for each sector we should have a point person who monitors proposals and coordinates input from members familiar with the service area in question. What do members think of this idea?

For years I have sought in vain an explanation why MTA's P2000 LA Standard Light Rail Car procurement was so troubled. Now buried in a document on the Integrated Project Team (IPT) whose avowed goal is to avoid a repeat of the P-2000 debacle with the new 2550 rail vehicles are two sentences that may give a hint of what happened with the P2000s: "The IPT's rail-operations based staff provides the 2550 Program with a more practical technical focus than a construction-based technical approach. This paradigm shift is the primary lesson learned from the P2000 contact". (MTA Board Operations Committee Jan. 15, 2004--agenda item #26, page 5).

The same Operations Committee meeting mentioned in the previous paragraph had a report received and filed on "Efficacy of Reestablishing the MTA Transit Police Department" (agenda item, #27). I doubt the MTA Police are likely to be reconstituted. As then MTA Board member James Cragin pointed out in 1996 when the policing partnership was approved, once MTA disbanded its Police it would be difficult if not impossible to ever reestablish it. I guess I should be blasé but I can't help being angered at the revelation that MTA policing costs doubled between 1995 and 1999. The report points out all things being equal bringing the Police in-house would save MTA between $10 and $20 million annually. Yet the obstacles to bringing back the MTA Police are daunting. And the clear bias of the MTA Board members whose governmental units have a fiscal stake in MTA not forming its own Police I think pretty well means this is one report that quickly will be gathering dust.

Does anyone understand why the municipal operators evidently don't like the new ability of rail station ticket machines (also known as TVMs) to sell Metro-to-Muni transfers to MTA pass holders? A recent meeting of the Bus Operator Subcommittee had a motion approved to ask MTA to reprogram the ticket machines so persons who ride rail lines with MTA pass (including day passes) "wouldn't be able to transfer from rail to a muni bus with an interagency transfer". MTA Pass holders have always been able to buy muni transfers on the bus - why is it any different to buy them from rail TVMs? Already Long Beach Transit has instituted a even more sweeping policy that the "Muni to Metro transfer is not valid with MTA passes": http://www.lbtransit.com/events.html#metro

The release of draft environmental documents has given the California high speed rail project the first splash of media attention in a long time. Public hearings are upcoming (check the Authority website after Feb. 13 for time and location: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/hearings/default.asp). It looks more and more like the $10 billion bond will be bumped to the Nov. 2006 ballot, providing time for support to build.

interesting fact of the month: Access Services, Inc. (L.A. County's ADA paratransit agency) received over $600,000 from MTA as reimbursement for ASI's strike related expenses.

Speaking of ASI, the city of Los Angeles Commission on Disability has been monitoring the agency during the past tumultuous 12-18 months. At the Dec. 3 Commission meeting Commissioner Overton asked Jess Segovia of ASI whether applicants are informed of their right to appeal if the examiner determines they do not qualify for certification. Mr. Segovia responded per the meeting minutes, "the person is not informed of their status at the interview because there have been incidents of violence if they did not get approved. Instead, they will receive a letter..."

Oh, and ASI is still suffering dire financial straits, having to take belt tightening measures less than 4 months into the new fiscal year: "The financial transactions for the period ending Oct. 2003 resulted in an over-budget position. Staff is aggressively managing the budget for fiscal year ending June 2004 and preventive measures have already been initiated to control costs for the balance of the fiscal year" (board box item, #3, Jan. 9, 2004: http://www.asila.org/calendar/agenda_display.cfm?agendatype=1)

I am thinking later this year of putting on a special event with a panel of 3 MTA drivers plus a mechanic and service attendant who would discuss the world of MTA bus service behind the wheel and behind the scenes. Few bus users have an idea of what providing transit service entails and it might be a useful educational exercise to have a public event where such operational aspects are in the spotlight.

MTA staff propose to enhance the yet to be implemented Universal Fare System with new technologies, which "will result in a minimum 6-month delay in the UFS schedule" (MTA Board Operations Committee Jan. 15 meeting, agenda item 37, page 3). Just another reason to expect it will be a while yet before UFS sees the light of day.

Wonder how much of a hit MTA ridership took due to the strike? -9.14% according to a presentation made by MTA Deputy CEO John Catoe at the same Operations Committee meeting referred to in the foregoing paragraph (agenda item 24).

In their championing of buses people like Tom Rubin and Robert W. Poole, Jr. stress the flexibity of buses versus fixed rail. Among the alleged advantages of building facilities for buses like busways is the vehicles can deviate as needed to serve demand. An example is MTA line 485 which runs on the portion of the El Monte busway from downtown Los Angeles to the off ramp to Lake, after which it continues on surface streets to its terminal. So the last thing you'd want to do is limit the flexibility of a bus facility. And that is why the MTA Board dubbing the East-West Rapidway "The Orange Line" is the height of idiocy. This essentially limits use of the busway to a single route running end to end. One would have though the fact the existing busways we have (the El Monte and Harbor) were not given colors for identification should have been a clue why this was a bad idea. Oh, well...