MTA LOSES APPEAL, TOLD TO BUY BUSES.

Byline: Staff and Wire Services

A federal appeals panel upheld an order Friday that directs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles to buy 248 more buses to reduce overcrowding.

The MTA asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year to shield it from a judge's order to buy and operate the buses, which agency officials contended was unnecessary and would cost more than $100 million.

But on a 2-1 vote, the appellate court called the MTA argument disingenuous and affirmed the order.

``This is such a tremendous victory for civil rights,'' said Cynthia Rojas, a Bus Riders Union organizer. ``The significance of it goes beyond the streets of Los Angeles.''

The MTA's chief executive officer, Julian Burke, said he was disappointed with the ruling but couldn't comment further, pending additional review.

``The MTA has greatly improved bus service and continues to do so,'' Burke said. ``I believe the MTA has achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the consent decree.''

Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn said after the court decision Friday that the MTA should end the legal battle against purchase of additional buses.

``The people of Los Angeles deserve quality, reliable bus service,'' Hahn said in a statement.

``As a member of the MTA board, I will continue to urge my colleagues to end the legal process and start working to meet our goal of improving and increasing bus service.''

The MTA and the Bus Riders Union in October 1996 brokered a consent decree to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit that the riders union and other minority advocate groups brought against the transit agency.

The consent decree sets forth a detailed plan to improve bus service, including limits on the number of passengers forced to stand on buses during rush periods.

The MTA had not met certain service improvement goals by the end of 1997, so a federal judge ordered the agency to follow the recommendations of a court-appointed mediator.

The MTA had argued that the order, or remedial plan, was based on a misinterpretation of the decree, and that the district court and the mediator didn't have the power to order the MTA to implement it.

The MTA was wrong about the first matter, U.S. Circuit Judge Barry Silverman wrote in his opinion, adding that the remedial plan was based on a correct interpretation of the consent decree.

Addressing the second matter, the judge wrote that the MTA had agreed to the consent decree and had opportunity to comply with it but failed to do so.

Silverman also said the remedial order does not violate state or federal laws, as the MTA contended.

U.S. Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall dissented, arguing that the order puts the MTA's funding at risk.

``MTA is not a private entity that has full discretionary authority over its funding; MTA's funds come with strings attached,'' she wrote.

Hall said ``the district court put MTA in the position of either placing its funding at risk by purchasing buses without obtaining the necessary approvals or risking contempt of court by delaying its acquisition of buses (when) the approvals were acquired.''

Hall called the remedial plan unnecessarily intrusive.