Bus Riders Union Refresher

As much I love going rail, buses make sense in L.A., because of the infrastructure we already have in place. It's cheaper, and it serves folks who actually have to use the system better. Rail's cool on the weekend and all, but when you have to get somewhere, that somewhere's generally not accessible by rail, and if we had more buses you could get there a lot more reliably than you can, now.

And there beef about consent decrees kind of makes sense to me. What do they need to do?--get a consent decree to get MTA to oblige the consent decrees?

Maybe this is beside the point and I'm just guilty of keeping a chip on my shoulder too long, but at a time way back in my life when I was riding the bus regularly I turned to the BRU for assistance and direction with a concern I had regarding the MTA's failure to properly advise its riders of a drastic though temporary change in as section of the route of its No. 96 line. I got absolutely no response back from them and I've sense viewed the BRU as interested in nothing beyond its core constituency and agenda.

If we look at public transportation as a means to an end, i.e. people being able to get to work on time, students being able to get to school on time, people being able to go to a park, or even visit a friend or family member, go to a hospital after 9 PM, then it becomes evident that public transportation is part of a much larger Civil Right for the transit dependent (i.e. people that don't have cars to drive to the rail station and predominantly Black and Latino working class peoples).

I've talked to people that are not able to take better paying jobs, because the bus doesn't run that early, or security guards waiting 1 hour at 1 AM to get home, or people that clean other folks homes and don't take the bus, because of the limited surface area that it covers, but are willing to spend 4 hours on a bus getting to the different places, which they should not have to.

Rail serves people with cars fine, but as regards
to those that are disabled or the elderly, or just cannot afford a car, a more effective bus system is what's needed to make it easier for people to succeed in this economy and society, until then we are no where near close to a level playing field.

I agree that an expansion of the Rail system is a priority, but the BRUs requests seem reasonable and a good idea for the short-term. I am relatively new to LA, though, and when I first arrived here and asked why there wasnt an adequate subway system, I was informed more than once that it was an issue of earthquake safety- that an underground system was not a sound investment for such a high-risk area. Do you guys know anything about that? I'm curious to know...

"Mr."Busch. I appreciate your commentary, and you are free to trust the BRU's agenda for LA's transit system. I am by no means an authority. Unfortunately, while the dream for bus only lanes on already busy thoroughfares would be a brilliant idea, it's quite doubtful that those in cars (and the policy makers who look after them) would be happy with the new traffic caused by the dedicated bus only lane. And even if bus lanes were developed, and drivers left their cars for the buses, suddenly you're back to square one, with the BRU's intial problem of over crowded buses dedicated to non-transit dependent white people (which I suppose we can assume those car drivers were, right?).

"Mr."Busch, I admit I have not done an investigation as to whether the neighborhoods that our rail lines travel through find those lines helpful, but I know ridership is higher than ever and that most of the riders are "working class people of color".

What is needed in Los Angeles is a transist SYSTEM consisting of local buses that feed rail lines. In my opinion, a cohesive system of rail and bus would be beneficial to everyone in Los Angeles, ESPECIALLY the tranist dependent.

But once again "Mr." Busch, these are only my opinions. If you'd like to get involved with the BRU and aid them in extending the consent decree (not degree) I recommend you attend their next monthly meeting and get involved!

Buses are a short-sighted, poor solution. They break every 5 years, and the budget's already to the point where they're spending huge amounts of their budget just maintaining what they already have. To say nothing of traffic.

The need-car-to-ride-rail argument is crap. I rode the metro for 3 years straight, busing to and from rail stops. Suited me fine.

If they'd just suck it up and put in rails in more places, we would be a LOT better off. Demanding more buses means we're just treading water.

The BRU is wasting their time trying to get "support" from the neighborhood councils, because the councils have no role in the consent decree and the judge overseeing it isn't going to see a list of neighborhood councils that support the BRU as a reason to extend the decree.

The special master who had been overseeing the decree has said that the MTA was substantially in compliance with it, and that is whose opinion matters to the judge. The only reason the BRU wants an extension is they want to portray themselves as being in charge of the situation, as they have for the past nine years. The reality is that unless they can show that the special master overlooked some critical shortcoming by the MTA, they have no legal argument to get the decree extended.

The BRU are not urban planners or transportation experts, yet they think they should be running things. Buses are not, in and of themselves, an answer to the problem, yet one of the things the BRU has constantly demanded is more buses on freeways. Ralph Cantos, I remember the old 424 freeway bus line from the Valley to Downtown, and I agree with you that it was a miserable experience ... yet that is what the BRU wants to subject us to again.

If you want to have a real voice, join an advocacy organization that has credibility with the MTA and the other transit agencies in our region, such as Southern California Transit Advocates. They are working toward a functional, multi-modal, regional system by providing input to all the agencies developing it. The BRU, on the other hand, has only one mantra: "Buy More Buses."

Wow! We've got some real armchair experts posting their opinions on here. So far I have yet to see one fact, figure or piece of research offered to support anyone's stance. Instead we're offered brilliant anecdotal observations such as "rail can't just be for people who drive cars-- look the parking lots (that I see) are empty!" Hmmm... before I decide what position I'm going to take when it comes to a critical civil rights issue such as public transportation I'm going to need some harder evidence than one individual's selective observation of some empty parking lots. Or, how about this gem: "buses break-down every five years." It sounds like this individual is making an argument that buses will cost more in maintenance than trains and that this will off-set the enormous up-front costs of building rails (i.e billions and billions). Maybe not a bad argument. However, where are your facts and figures to support such a claim?

Ten years ago when the BRU brought their lawsuit against the MTA there was no shortage of people who called them "dumb, stupid, crazy, out of touch" etc, for claiming the MTA discriminated against working class transit dependant people of color-- just like many people are doing here. But you know what? The BRU won a consent decree. And since then the MTA appealed SIX times decisions to buy more busses, and everytime the the BRU has prevailed in the rulings. The BRU has proved undoubtedly that their claims are correct. And how has the BRU accomplished this? By providing facts, figures, research, and testimony from countless experts and transit dependant riders.

So who are we left to believe in this current debate? Individuals who call other people names as a way to prove their point, or an organization that has been working tirelessly on this issue non-stop for ten plus years-- an organization that literally spends everyday working and organizing with the transit dependant in order to figure out how to best meet their needs. It seems pretty clear to me. I know who has been putting in work and who spends everyday in the trenches working with the people.

As for the woman who describes the BRU as not being urban planners or transportation experts-- Bravo, and that's exactly why I trust them. The BRU does what urban planners and transportation experts don't, instead of getting trapped in a comfy office or an ivory tower, they go out on the streets and the busses and organize and interact with the community and the people (and specifically with the transit dependant) to find out what the community really needs. Anyone who can look at L.A. and trust the job traditional transportation experts have done (since the BRU does consider themselves experts in this area-- just check out their 5-year new service plan posted on their web-site) must be out of their minds.

Mr. Camino, I'm glad you recognize bus only lanes is a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, you get the BRU's agenda a little confused. Nobody ever said the BRU didn't want non-transit dependant white people to be able to utilize publice transportation-- they just believe (as do I) that the needs of the transit dependant need to come first. If the MTA doubles their bus fleet (for example to match the size of NYC's bus fleet), and implements bus-only lanes, there will be plenty of room for everyone on the busses! Additionally, I think the BRU would agree in an ideal world with an unlimited budget it would be great to have both rail and busses! Unfortunately that is not the environment we live and we need to make tough choices about how to spend our transportation dollars, and the denominator used to make these decisions needs to be what's best for the transit dependant in our city. (also, Mr. Camino, why are you putting quotation marks around mister in my name? Are you trying to imply something? if so, I'd appreciate if you just came right out and said it-- that would be the adult way to handle things)

Look, I'll admit when I first heard the BRU's demands for a moratorium on all rail construction I was confused. I was always told that rail and subways were the way to go. Subways just seemed more sexy than busses. But as I heard the BRU's arguments for why busses made more sense in a spread-out, non-densely populated city like L.A. I was moved to embrace their position. Unfortunately, it seems to me many people are still clinging to their old beliefs in their postings and are using any argument they can to defend their old ideas.

You guys want some statistics? Here you go:
L.A. MTA--
Busses in fleet: 2,668
Square Miles in service area: 1,433
Bus routes: 191

NYC MTA (New York City Transit)--
Busses in fleet: 4,483
Square Miles in service area: 321
Bus routes: 244

sources:
http://www.metro.net/press/pressroom/facts.htm#RailRidership
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/network.htm#statsnyct
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JordanLevine1.shtml

So there you go. The NYC MTA serves an area that is almost 1/5 the size of the Los Angeles MTA yet they have nearly double the amount of busses! I just found all this information by doing a simple google search. I'd appreciate it if the rest of you who post on here also have the courtesy to put some time and thought behind what you write and do a little research first!

Finally, Mr. Camino, thank you for the invitation to the BRU's monthly event. I might just take you up on that! However, the reason I was asking how I could support the BRU in getting an extension for the consent decree is because clearly the BRU is reaching out to other groups and organizations to ally with them in voicing support for an extension. So, while I'm sure the BRU would welcome my membership, it seems what they're really looking for right now is broad support from a variety of orgs, groups, neighborhood councils, etc.

Here's a little surprise for Dae-Han Song.

The bulk of MTA's operating budget does go toward bus operations, for the simple reason that there are more buses than rail cars.

That is also the reason why there is more bus ridership than rail. Plus some of that bus ridership is people riding them to and from rail connections ...

And here is the flaw in Joshua Busch's logic:

Comparing Los Angeles to New York is an apples vs. oranges situation, because New Yorkers have always embraced transit, whereas Los Angelenos embrace their cars. Were the residents of our region willing to give up their cars, there would be more public transit. This is not the MTA's fault, much as you would like it to be.

Oh, and that consent decree is about to end, despite the BRU's attempts to get it extended. What you fail to mention as you cheer their past victories is that in the last ruling by the special master, he declared that MTA is substantially in compliance and rejected their request to reconsider demands they made to him previously and which he ruled against them on. You either need to do a bit more research, or if you knew these facts already, you need to be complete in your postings.

The problem with the BRU is that they take the complete opposite view to what you wrongfully claim some of us have. They are completely opposed to a multi-modal system, where buses are used for relatively short trips to connect to rail systems that take people the longer distances faster. I believe that neither bus nor rail, on its own, can do the entire job. The BRU believes bus can do everything and rail can do nothing.

The BRU "five-year plan" has more logistic holes in it than a pound of Swiss cheese. Unless you have a working knowledge of transportation planning you will come up with something that sounds wonderful to the layperson but will not work in the real world. That is what I meant by my remark about them not being qualified to run the system. Not that it will matter by the end of the year anyway.

This, while hypocritically riding the Red Line between their offices (in the penthouse of the Wiltern Theatre ... pretty classy digs for an organization that claims to be "grassroots" ... thanks to Eric Mann and his corporate donors) and the MTA building.

Ms. Richards, I'm making the assumption that you're a member of "Southern California Transit Advocates." If I'm correct, may I ask how many members do you have in your organization? Just curious, because from my understanding the BRU has at least 2000 plus members-- the majority of whom are transit dependant working class people of color. Also, Ms. Richards, how often do you go out on the buses and the subways to talk with and interact with transit dependant folks? Just curious, cause we need to figure out your real chops here. You talk a good game (actually not really), but are you really walking the walk? You claim to put in work representing the transit dependant-- sorry, my bad, take that back, so far you haven't-- you've never said anything about representing the transit dependant or having their best interest in mind. All you've done is bash the BRU and more specifically Mr. Mann. Sounds more like a personal issue to me. You know what they say, people start slinging mud when they've lost an argument...

Ms. Richards, your attempt to expose the "flaw in my logic" is actually quite laughable. You've clearly misinterpreted the law of cause and effect. The reason why more people don't ride the bus here (when they have the choice) isn't "because New Yorkers have always embraced transit, whereas Los Angelenos embrace their cars" it's because THE BUS SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES SUCKS!!!! Give Angelenos a first-class bus system with bus-only lanes and "they'll abandon them cars like they yesterdays news!" Sorry Ms. Richards, I guess I just have more faith and confidence in Angelenos to believe that they'll embrace buses if the system is up to par and what it could be. Your skeptical view-point of the people in our city as transit snobs just doesn't ring true for me. One last thing, I guess I didn't make myself clear earlier, if you're going to level attacks-- such as calling names when mentioning the BRU's five year service plan-- then please come with specifics. Nobody learns by calling names.

And Mr. Camino, after your last post I have more respect for you. Thank you for focusing on facts and figures. Yes, it would be great if we could build more rail and subways! But, the sad reality is the MTA hasn't come close to meeting their responsibity as far as providing enough buses and routes for the transit dependant (e.g. see figures above regarding number of buses serving NYC citizens in an area less than 1/4 of the size). Maybe some day we can get to the point where we discuss the building of more rails (please keep in mind how expensive it is to build rail), but as far as this point and time in history-- we have light-years to go before that's the case. I'm beginning to think that maybe you and I aren't so far apart on things-- maybe we just need to hash a few things out?!

Finally, if there's one bright spot in this whole debate-- it's seemed that more or less everyone has expressed agreement with the progress that's been made under the consent decree. Good stuff! However, let me add some food for thought to your plate. It's no secret that the MTA has been fighting the BRU every step of the way during the past ten years. What makes folks think that as soon as the consent decree is eliminated the MTA won't roll back a significant portion of the progress that has been won up to this point? The fact of the matter is that there is no guarantee that the MTA won't take such an action, and based upon their track record such a regressive action is what we should expect! An extension of the consent decree is needed not only to insure continued progressive expansion of public transportation services in L.A. county, but also maybe more importantly to insure protection of the gains that have already been made!

I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.

Read this.

http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/the-subway-mayor/349/

1) Rail cannot, and never will replace all buses for mass transit. It's just not possible. Even in New York City and London, where they have huge subway systems, they ALSO have huge bus systems.

However, the BRU wants no more rail in favor of buses. They would even perfer that all rail systems be yanked out. We need a mass transit system with both. Rail for large trunk lines, even subways in some areas, with buses providing feeder routes into those rail services.

2) The BRU has, insanely in my view, viewed trains as inherently "racist." This makes them unreliable as advocates for the poor. They have promoted the meme of rail as serving "rich white people" to the detrement of poor inner-city transit dependent people. Trains are the best form of mass transit. Why, in the view of the BRU, do poor people not deserve the best? Why should they be trapped in buses?

3)The MTA HAS served the needs of the poor, inner-city rider. I believe the first light rail line constructed, the Blue Line, went directly through Compton and Watts. I don't see too many rich white people living there.

4) The Los Angeles area is constructed the way it is (spread out), BECAUSE of trains, not because of freeways, which weren't even built until the 1950's (excepting the Pasadena). The fact these trains were taken out was a tragedy. Those trains built our economy; should anyone be surprised that our economy didn't sustain its growth when they were removed? Anyone know about the Pacific Electric and the Los Angeles Railway? Look it up.

5) Light rail is the only solution for a metropolis that keeps growing. Buses just don't have the capacity to carry as many people. And you can't just keep adding more buses: they get tangled up in traffic with everything else.

6)Trains are cheaper in the long term, even if the upfront costs are greater. How about this: one train carries as many people as six buses: that's FIVE bus drivers whose salary we don't have to pay. We also have railroad right of way owned by the MTA that can be used for light rail in several additional locations include a line to LAX.

Okay, fine, call me an armchair advocate if you want. But I do have facts on my side. The BRU is all about protecting nobody but themselves.

And to go back to the five year plan, the BRU's ideas ARE nuts.

Let's look at the BRU five year plan, a plan that resembles the old Soviet five year plans in its grasp on reality.

Their "plan" involves:

Scott Mercer Said:

"How about this: one train carries as many people as six buses: that's FIVE bus drivers whose salary we don't have to pay. "

This, along with their support of the drivers and mechanics during the strikes instead of the riders, to me shows that BRU may really be a labor organization rather than a organization representing the interests of the transit dependent. More buses means more jobs for drivers and mechanics. Not that this is a bad thing, but if it's indeed the case, they should represent themselves as such.

I'd also like to take this time to mention that I'm certainly not against bus improvements. In fact, as a bus rider I realize that the system needs a lot of improvement. But I think a lot of the problems are caused by the limitations of buses, especially in our spread-out, dense county. I believe bus in conjunction with rail will help create a unified transit SYSTEM that will serve everyone effectively.

While you're being nitpicky (I never said that BRU and the MTA were operating in the same universe), Silver Streak is not part of the rapid program, not is it a rapid line. There is no signal synchornization planned on the system, and buses will operate on regular lanes with regular or carpool traffic (with the exception of a few blocks in Downtown). It is something independently thought up by and coming from Foothill.

Dae-Han Song wrote:
Ridership statistics
Red, Blue, Gold, Green Lines combined
7764083 18.7 %
Buses
33756432 81.3 %
That's 81.3% of ridership goes to buses

But if you add total route mileage, rail is a more efficient mode. Rail mileage is about 100 miles, or somewhat close to 10 percent of total system mileage (buses and rail function as different modes of a single system). Rail has 10 percent of mileage and carries 17 percent of total traffic.

1 mile of rail costs 300,000,000 dollars
1 bus costs 300,000 dollars
with 1 mile of rail you can put 1000 buses on the streets (1 mile is about 3 blocks?)

First of all, your comparison is invalid because you are not comparing alike costs. If you really want to buy 1,000 new buses, you need to build 8-10 new bus divisions. Construction of one goes for $10 million-$20 million. That's not even counting today's real estate prices or the difficulty in siting a Prop. 65 building. Then you need to stock up on parts, and possibly build another storage site for them. Let's pencil in about $20 million for this.

And I have not even gone into the manpower required to operate this huge fleet. Generally, you assume 2.5 operators for every bus purchased. You'd also need to hire about both 200 new mechanics and cleaners. You'd need to hire 100 new management-level employees, and expand the human resources department, too. Oh, and personnel is an ongoing expense. You have to identify a steady revenue source to pay these people every year and beyond. Don't forget, they get pensions, too.

You're looking to shell out over a billion dollars on the capital end. If you loot the funds directed to rail, that's a one-time windfall. You haven't identified where you'll have a steady revenue stream to pay for the 1,000 buses.

My other point is that beware of anyone who trots out these statistics. They are good for shock value and entertaining sound bites but become dangerous when this becomes actual operational policy. Song only mentioned the "sticker cost" of the buses, but not all the aggregate capital costs or a steady operational funding source.

The fact that 81.3 % of public transportation ridership is on the buses, I would say makes a strong argument for putting 81.3% of its budget on buses, but what makes it not just a common sense issue, but one around equality and justice is the fact that overwhelmingly these 81.3% are transit dependent, Black and Latino, working class, the disabled, the elders, the students.

The problem comes from believing Eric Mann's framework. MTA is required by law to build rail. Propositions A and C, passed in 1980 and 1990, respectively, set a percentage of funds set aside to build rail. If rail is racist, the BRU should try to get the two propositions overturned in court on civil rights grounds. Second, Eric Mann gets it wrong by believing that rail and bus ridership do not overlap, implying that poor, dark-skinned riders are systematically shut out of the system. The facts are that rail and bus demographics are similar. Even on Metrolink, minority ridership is around 40 percent.

...if someone out there is willing to get up at 5 AM in the morning to go clean a house 1 1/2 hour away from their home, or willing to work as a security guard until 1 AM, shouldn't we guarantee that the bus will be there on time?

How the heck can you guarantee something that you couldn't deliver on in the best of conditions. You couldn't deliver a perfect on-time record if you had all the money in the world. Ask anyone who works in a transit system.

Sometimes we need to dig a little deeper bro, because what you see in front of you is not always the whole truth.

BRU supporters need to do this more than anyone else.

*why wouldn't anybody? it is nicer, you can't deny it, but the reason why there IS 81.3% of ridership (about 33 million people) choosing an alternative that is slower, that is less on time, that is oftentimes overcrowded is because the rail can't take you to all the places you need.
No, but the entire MTA system can. You can't apply a one-seat standard just to rail without acknowledging that over three-quarters of all trips taken on MTA require one transfer. Or, only about 10 percent of trips are one-seat rides. These figures are from analyses available at the MTA library.

I already know what the counterpoint is going to be to the above, so let me pre-emptively offer my rebuttal. The argument will go along the lines of "MTA will not fix the bus routes because of the race and class of its riders."

The rebuttal: This is where the decentralized, sprawled-out land use of Los Angeles works against buses, especially with the astronomoically high ridership in Los Angeles. If you regress origin and destination data, there are too many of both to make one-seat bus rides even possible. You have to have hundreds more bus routes, running at low frequencies, to make a one-seat ride possible. The trade-off is that the low frequencies negate any advantage of a one-seat ride.

The one-seat ride is more suitable for small agencies with few buses and low-frequency service. This is because low-frequency service can be timed around a central transfer point and is easier to coordinate than if a route ran every 15 minutes or more.

MTA cannot do this. Instead, MTA runs routes along the L.A. street grid, and compensates for the inconvenience of transfers by running high-frequency service along a straight line. MTA's ridership patterns are not radial; they are more like a web.

Rail makes very good sense in this environment. Because L.A. is so sprawled out, rail can move more people farther, faster and more reliably than comparable distances on buses. The farther riders travel, the more they realize a time advantage of riding a train. Therefore, their overall trip time is reduced. What also has made L.A.'s rail lines successful is a heavy concentration in parts of the city where intersecting bus service is also frequent (15 minute service or better). The transfer penalty is greatly reduced when service is so frequent.

The consent decree is going to expire. The MTA is already commencing serious studies for the Purple Line, downtown connector and San Fernando to SGV connector. Rail will happen in LA. Better bus service will also increase in LA. Whatever the role the BRU has played in the past for better or worse is over.