California...

[79MetroExtraMD]

Yea, that's what DASH does....all state and local funds.  That's why we are not at all impacted by FTA's decision.

Aren't yall lucky. Any idea if the Cali operators are mostly state/local funds. Alot of them still run shuttles and such to special events.

[MetroLinerXLZ]

Yea, that's what DASH does....all state and local funds.  That's why we are not at all impacted by FTA's decision.

Aren't yall lucky. Any idea if the Cali operators are mostly state/local funds. Alot of them still run shuttles and such to special events.

AFAIK, some are and some aren't.

The ones that are NOT:
North County Transit District, LACMTA, SamTrans, VTA, AC Transit, Torrance Transit.
All except NCTD and LACMTA were required to repower a portion of their buses with newer engines before they could continue to receive federal funds.

NCTD also replaces their buses every 12-15 years, like MARTA (Atlanta, GA) and GRTC.

LACMTA (despite two previous court rulings) is still under a Consent Decree, which is the only reason the 4400-series still operate daily. Under the Consent Decree (from what I last heard), LACMTA isn't allowed to buy high floors or buses shorter than 40', which wouldn't be economically feasible as there are routes like the 176 (El Monte Station-Glassell Park) that don't require use of a 40' bus but do need a high floor bus.

EDIT: The Consent Decree (or at least the basics of it) can be read here:
http://www.busridersunion.org/engli/Campaigns/consentdecree/consentdecreeoverview.htm

And not to be political, but this site is of the Bus Riders Union, which is an organization that tends to be politically "left". And that's not the type of people I associate with (politically).

Also, the bolded underlined type (about LACMTA's 4400-series buses) is incorrect, that part would be due to the California Environmental Quality Act, which prohibits several transit agencies from using federal funds to purchase diesel-powered buses or buses shorter than 40 feet. The BRU did however, support the modifications requiring certain agencies to repower a portion of their bus fleet in order to continue to receiving federal funds.

[Scrabbleship]

I thought the consent decree sunsetted at the end of 2006. I know part of it was that fares were frozen and the LACMTA is going forward with a fare increase at the start of next year much to the protest of the BRU and assorted others.

[MetroLinerXLZ]

I thought the consent decree sunsetted at the end of 2006. I know part of it was that fares were frozen and the LACMTA is going forward with a fare increase at the start of next year much to the protest of the BRU and assorted others.

As was stated in my last post, two previous court rulings (including an appellate court ruling) ruled that the LACMTA had done enough to allow the Consent Decree to lapse. The Federal 9th Circuit Court basically overturned both decisions, which is why the Consent Decree is still in effect. 

Also, the Consent Decree had required LACMTA to retire 381 buses that were older than 12 years old (which included the 2900-series Flxibles), add 279 buses (at least 134 for Metro Rapid Service), and add 310,000 service hours.

Sans the fare increase proposals, LACMTA gets my backing on this one.