Post by bennyp81 on Jun 22, 2005 7:28:10 GMT -8
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 24th [2001] 4:28 PM
A charged editorial (Editor Note: Actually an OpEd Opinion Piece) in today's (05/24/01) Los Angeles Times written by Eric Mann and friends included this:
-Today at the MTA board meeting, the Bus Riders Union and its community allies will ask board members to explain why they are trying to "terminate" a signed consent decree.
We also will ask them again to purchase 350 new buses and end their challenges to the authority of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
So, anyone who was at the meeting, how did it go? What form did the BRUs challenge take. Did they try to go after the Eastside line while they were there?
Greg M.
User ID: 8861793 May 25th 11:01 AM
MTA Approves Light-Rail Study Transit: Board also OKs $2.7-billion budget and rejects a move to kill a freeway exit near LAX.
By DOUGLAS P. SHUIT, Times Staff Writer
Police broke up a raucous demonstration by the Bus Riders Union on Thursday just minutes after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board took a significant step forward in efforts to build a six-mile light rail extension to the Eastside.
In other action during the turbulent meeting, the MTA board approved a $2.7-billion budget, rejected efforts by community activists to kill a proposed freeway offramp near Los Angeles International Airport, and overrode opposition by South Pasadena residents to pass a measure renewing support for a bitterly opposed extension of the Long Beach Freeway.
Three people were forcibly ejected from the meeting room during discussion of the airport issue.
They were upset over a plan that some believed would make it easier to expand LAX, always a lightning rod for controversy.
No sooner had that issue been disposed of than nine members of the Bus Riders Union were nearly arrested when they locked arms and sat down after the light rail vote.
They were protesting the spending on rail, which members of the group contend takes away resources needed to improve bus services.
As the protesters took their places, county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, the MTA board chairwoman, left her seat and came directly to the rail that separates the public from the board.
There, she waved off security guards who were preparing to make the arrests.
"Leave them alone! Leave them alone!. . . . Leave them alone!" Burke shouted at security guards after they waded into the demonstrators and began twisting arms and prying legs apart.
Burke adjourned the board into a closed-door session to discuss lawsuits, and the bus rider group eventually left peacefully.
The debate that preceded the blowup involved a confrontation between members of the riders union--"Sindicato de Pasajeros"--and Latino residents of East Los Angeles who badly want a rail connection to downtown Los Angeles.
At issue was approval of environmental studies necessary to obtain federal money that will pay most of the $759-million cost of the light rail line.
Construction will not begin until at least 2003. Eric Mann, one of about 125 union members who showed up for Thursday's board meeting, argued that the MTA's focus on rail violates its legal obligations.
Mann contended that the MTA is required to improve bus service before starting any new rail projects under a consent decree signed by transit agency officials in 1996. The MTA disputes that argument.
An equal number of partisans in favor of light rail turned out for the vote.
County Supervisor Gloria Molina said Eastside residents were disappointed several years ago when the MTA canceled a subway that had been planned for the area.
She said they were adamant about receiving light rail. "This is their second choice," Molina said. "They want access to the rest of the transit system throughout L.A. County."
Burke agreed. "The Eastside of Los Angeles is entitled to transportation just like North Hollywood," she said. "They are entitled to it, and we are going to give it to them."
One of the day's other heated debates was over the airport. It centered on a proposed offramp on the San Diego Freeway at Arbor Vitae Street.
The offramp is supported by Caltrans and the city of Los Angeles, but has languished without funding for nearly 20 years.
It became a hot-button issue after being drawn into the fight over possible expansion of LAX.
The MTA board approved a trimmed-down version of the interchange that would serve only the airport side of the freeway.
Considered a concession to local residents, it passed unanimously.
"They really didn't give us anything," said Mike Stevens, organizer of a large group of LAX growth opponents and one of those ushered from the meeting by guards.
Stevens estimated that 225 residents of Inglewood and other communities turned out for Thursday's meeting, arriving in three chartered buses.
The fight over the Long Beach Freeway extension developed over a change in language describing plans for the freeway that opponents interpreted as a sign the MTA was quietly moving forward to build the long-delayed project.
City officials from South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge as well as residents of the El Sereno section of Los Angeles urged the board to reject the language.
As it stands, plans for the freeway extension are part of the MTA's long-range transportation blueprint, but without any money to back those plans up.
In contrast to the uproar that greeted those issues, the budget itself passed without discussion.
It will pay for hundreds of bus, rail and highway construction projects for the government budget year starting July 1.
Board member John Fasana, a Duarte city councilman and member of a coalition of San Gabriel Valley cities, was elected by other board members as the next chairman, replacing Burke.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 25th 5:29 PM
Heavy
I'm glad LRT supporters showed up in at least equal numbers. It's difficult because it's a work day and I know many people like myself have to work.
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 25th 6:48 PM
Yeah, work can create quite a problem. I thought I was going to be there, until I got a voice mail for a 10:00 a.m. meeting.
What is good is that this shows that the BRU isn't asleep, and can be expected to come out next month for Expo when the chips might be a bit more in their favor.
(they certainly look foolish claiming racism while fighting against Latino activists from East LA - perceptions might be a bit different about the west side, even though the corridor has a very diverse population).
Why is this good? Because it reminds us that we need to be there in force next month.
Jason S.
User ID: 0408214 May 26th 11:30 PM
I plan on taking the day off from work but unfortunately I can not do that too often.
Adrian Auer-Hudson
User ID: 9656233 May 27th 6:14 AM
Right, work's a pain. But we all have to make a living. When this campaign started, I thought it was the most exciting in years.
At the time I was wrapping up an IT assignment in the Bay area and looking forward to being back home.
Little did I know then how dead the LA IT market had become.
When I couldn't find work at home, I took a year's assignment in Omaha. At least I would be back in time for the climax of the campaign!
No such joy. No work for a Walker financial systems specialist in the Southland, so now I am in Edinburgh for six months. My visits home are more rare than ever!
May I express gratitude to those of you who have carried the torch for this great project? I look forward to the day I meet some of the names on this board in person.
Mike Olivier
User ID: 0339064 May 28th 1:33 PM
I'm also impressed by the F4E & their concerted drive for the Expo LRT corridor, and the contributors to these discussions who attend the meetings.
I live in Toronto Canada & belong to the Rocket Riders Transit Users Group.
We have a tough time getting lots of people interested enough to attend transit & city meetings, as transit here's generally excellent.
But the province has cut out all their funding for transit, the feds here do absolutely nothing for transit.
I've seen it does take dedicated time to make a difference, to attend workday transit meetings, make deputations, attend our own meetings, write letters to papers, councillors, other advocacy groups.
This discussion board's a great idea. Our version of it is www.transit.toronto.on.ca (note this isn't the Rocket Riders page but a general transit interest page).
I travel to LA occasionally for work & ride the rail system every single time. It does cover huge distances, and I'm so happy not to have to drive everywhere.
Ruben H.
User ID: 9656233 May 29th 3:20 PM
Since I live on the Westside, I rarely get a chance to ride our city's rails.
Last Sunday, however, I was invited to the Laker game and I had to drop off my kids in the valley.
My wife and I decided we would park at Universal City and take the MetroRail to the Staples Center.
It was a great choice. It took about 25 minutes, including transfer to the blue line, was smooth, comfortable, hassle free and only cost 5.40 round trip for the both of us, compared to $15.00+ that was being charged for parking.
I was amazed at how busy both the Red and Blue Lines were for a weekend, and it was not just basketball fan traffic.
I've been on many subway systems around the world and truthfully the Red Line is one of the nicest single lines in terms of speed, comfort and ease of use (except for the stupid fact that you can only buy your ticket from a machine - they need some human presence in case your bills are too raggedy or too big).
The biggest shame of our rail system is that it doesn't go to enough places.
If the Expo Line existed I could take it downtown and be there in a matter of 10 minutes. I would love to never have to drive downtown.
In this morning's LA Times there was an article lamenting the many freeways from the 1958 master plan that didn't get built - like the Malibu Freeway or the Laurel Canyon Freeway.
There is an Assemblyman from Thousand Oaks pushing to get more of these freeways off the shelf as a way to solve the congestion problem.
There is another way. We need to expand the rail network (and not so painstakingly slow so that only our grandchildren will get to enjoy it) so that more people have a choice of transportation options.
If people have a good experience, they will be sold. "If you build it, they will come." And likely, as the increasing ridership shows, they will stay.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 29th 8:24 PM
Too often is rail compared to buses. It is infrastructure and should be compared to other infrastructure like freeways.
I often think that the MTA should be in charge of operating the vehicles and a separate entity should be in charge of building the infrastructure.
Then you would wouldn't get in ridiculous arguments like "rail taking away from buses."
Nobody ever complains about "money spent on freeways taking away from buses."
Gerald
User ID: 0575574 May 29th 10:59 PM
Uhm, even when the Expo Line is built, it'll take more than 10 minutes since it's going above ground...
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 29th 11:36 PM
One problem with the division of construciton and operation is that you need to properly incentivize (OK, that is not a real world, though it is used way to frequently in my profession so I'll use it here) the agencies to make decisions that are to the maximum benefit.
Not that the MTA is necessarily good at this as one agency, but it will theoretically be worse divided.
For example, rail provides lower operating costs per passenger measure, which should benefit the operating agency.
The operating agency will further benefit from the construction of lines which will attract significant ridership, thus increasing revenue and lowering cost per passenger measure.
The construction agency will need incentives to work towards these goals.
They would face all of the opposition to construction of a particular route, and may not take the proper cost-benefit position for the entire system.
Not to mention the need to coordinate the two agencies in seeking funding for projects (assumably the operating agency is still responsible for the cost of vehicles, otherwise their decisions would be distorted towards minimizing their own costs in ways that may reduce the life of the vehicles).
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 30th 11:46 AM
I was thinking along the lines of Los Angeles to Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authoritiy which is constructing a line vs. the MTA which will be the ultimate operator of this line.
The Authority's incentive is that this is the task in which it was charged.
I recognize where you are going with your
"economic incentive" argument but I don't think that is a good argument in this case.
Does Caltrans construct freeways for lower operating cost or to improve the system?
I would say it was the latter.
Since the proposed authority's sole charge is to construct new lines, its overhead is lower and it can build them cheaper. This is the case with the Pasadena Line.
Since the authority is smaller and it's tasks are more limited, it can more efficiently oversee projects under it's domain.
Additionally, you have an agency whose sole job is to build things. The idea of "specializing" comes into mind and the cost efficiencies gained from this are very large.
This also free's the MTA to focus more of it's energy as an operator and in improving it's system.
I guess I could see if building rail projects was was your sole priority as an agency things would get put on the fast track.
Did anybody notice how fast the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority rail corridor is being constructed? They too have their own authority.
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 30th 7:06 PM
You have some good points, but there is still the decision for the need to build a particular project. The Blue Line was an existing, floundering project.
It is also interesting to note that two of your examples are construction authorities for single projects - Pasadena and Alameda.
That brings the question of whether there should be a separate agency for all construction, or "one off" authorities for individual major projects.
There are certainly arguments for both. A single authority can pursue one goal rather than having to trade things off.
Although many (BRU for example) would like to question Pasadena spending, and claim that money should go elsewhere, the Authority has a singular goal and therefore doesn't need to get caught up with major tradeoffs (money should go to bus, money should go to another corridor, etc etc).
They simply need to make the appropriate tradeoffs to build their own project, such as specific routing decisions.
On the other hand, an overall authority can develop greater specialized resources in specific areas that can be re-used in different projects, rather than having to contract in short term specialists.
Your statement about specialization leading to large savings is dubious. If this was the case, most large corporations do not exist.
There is significant opportunity for savings in a combined organization with compatible goals.
You can still have specialization where it is appropriate, but you can also share common services rather than having to duplicate efforts.
Areas that could be shared include finance/ payroll/human resource functions, IT support and operations, legal, corporate communications, etc. This is a very large cost efficiency.
That isn't to say the MTA is cost efficient, just that large can be more efficient than small and it isn't clear that separate construction and operation agencies would be free from the current inefficiencies.
I think many Expo supporters, myself included, would like to see a JPA for the construction of Expo once we get to that point.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Jun 5th 5:04 AM
Jason S. wrote:
What is good is that this shows that the BRU isn't asleep, and can be expected to come out next month for Expo when the chips might be a bit more in their favor (they certainly look foolish claiming racism while fighting against Latino activists from East LA - perceptions might be a bit different about the west side, even though the corridor has a very diverse population).
How as the Expo Rail supporters line garnered support in the Mid City and Crenshaw areas?
Contrary to popular misconception, people in low-income areas would love to get a rail line because it provides fast, safe transportation.
Has it organized with any churches or business groups in that area?
Remember...Exposition isn't just about taking cars off the Santa Monica freeway.
There is a poor community along the line that would heavily use this line.
They need to be part of the advocacy. It can't just be a coalition of idealists and railfans. You'd never get Expo built.
By the way, the BRU is really a paper tiger. If you wanted to, you can discredit them EASILY. For starters, look at Kym Richards' "Radio Free BRU" page:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
If this is supposed to be a grass-roots movement, how would the BRU rectify the following:
*Most of the members are dirt poor, either in reality or as they are projected by the BRU. If this is so, why does Eric Mann earn $200,000 a year to run the group?
(1999 IRS Form 990: Eric & Lian Mann earned $260,000 before expense reimbursement.)
*Why is Eric Mann rallying against rail in Los Angeles, when he has worked for a corporation responsible for dismantling rail in the mid-20th century, General Motors?
You can check the book out from the Central Library. Here is the catalog listing:
catalog.lapl.org/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?fullRecord+18168+965+351965+1+0
*Since the LCSC, the BRU's parent group, spends a great deal of time and effort indoctrinating members in far left ideologies (socialism and communism), how come they do not follow anticapitalistic principles and not invest in stocks, which is passively making money off the labor of others?
Their investment holdings are attached to their 990 entries, available on Kym Richards' site.
*When the BRU constantly points out how terrible the Los Angeles bus system is, why do they want more buses? Wouldn't it just be the same low-grade service on a larger fleet?
*If the BRU is working in the interests of bus riders, how come they came out in favor of drivers and MTA employees during the strike last year, and even had members marching in solidarity with them?
You could point these out, and dare the BRU to straighten up these questions without using the word racist.
Mike Wills
User ID: 8903453 Jun 5th 11:21 AM
the last one can be answered as follows:
we are showing solidarity with fellow members of the proletariet against the bourgeoise mta.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 Jun 5th 1:05 PM
Just for the record, I don't believe I said that.
I'm curious how many BRU members read these boards. So far two persons claim to be BRU members.
Bart Reed and Mike Wills.
Mike Wills
User ID: 1808544 Jun 5th 2:49 PM
When did i say that?
the previous answer was a hypothetical one.
i would never deliberately join an organization that was as antirail as the bru.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 Jun 5th 3:41 PM
Apologies
You used the pronoun "we" in reference to the BRU.
Adrian Auer-Hudson
User ID: 9656233 Jun 5th 4:10 PM
One assumes Bart Reed is our "mole" within the BRU!!
(Note: Known Rail Transit Critic John Walsh also tells people at the BRU meetings that Bart Reed is a "spy".)
Mike Wills
User ID: 2393954 Jun 5th 7:53 PM
No worries- the way i phrased it was confusing
mike
User ID: 9544623 May 24th [2001] 4:28 PM
A charged editorial (Editor Note: Actually an OpEd Opinion Piece) in today's (05/24/01) Los Angeles Times written by Eric Mann and friends included this:
-Today at the MTA board meeting, the Bus Riders Union and its community allies will ask board members to explain why they are trying to "terminate" a signed consent decree.
We also will ask them again to purchase 350 new buses and end their challenges to the authority of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
So, anyone who was at the meeting, how did it go? What form did the BRUs challenge take. Did they try to go after the Eastside line while they were there?
Greg M.
User ID: 8861793 May 25th 11:01 AM
MTA Approves Light-Rail Study Transit: Board also OKs $2.7-billion budget and rejects a move to kill a freeway exit near LAX.
By DOUGLAS P. SHUIT, Times Staff Writer
Police broke up a raucous demonstration by the Bus Riders Union on Thursday just minutes after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board took a significant step forward in efforts to build a six-mile light rail extension to the Eastside.
In other action during the turbulent meeting, the MTA board approved a $2.7-billion budget, rejected efforts by community activists to kill a proposed freeway offramp near Los Angeles International Airport, and overrode opposition by South Pasadena residents to pass a measure renewing support for a bitterly opposed extension of the Long Beach Freeway.
Three people were forcibly ejected from the meeting room during discussion of the airport issue.
They were upset over a plan that some believed would make it easier to expand LAX, always a lightning rod for controversy.
No sooner had that issue been disposed of than nine members of the Bus Riders Union were nearly arrested when they locked arms and sat down after the light rail vote.
They were protesting the spending on rail, which members of the group contend takes away resources needed to improve bus services.
As the protesters took their places, county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, the MTA board chairwoman, left her seat and came directly to the rail that separates the public from the board.
There, she waved off security guards who were preparing to make the arrests.
"Leave them alone! Leave them alone!. . . . Leave them alone!" Burke shouted at security guards after they waded into the demonstrators and began twisting arms and prying legs apart.
Burke adjourned the board into a closed-door session to discuss lawsuits, and the bus rider group eventually left peacefully.
The debate that preceded the blowup involved a confrontation between members of the riders union--"Sindicato de Pasajeros"--and Latino residents of East Los Angeles who badly want a rail connection to downtown Los Angeles.
At issue was approval of environmental studies necessary to obtain federal money that will pay most of the $759-million cost of the light rail line.
Construction will not begin until at least 2003. Eric Mann, one of about 125 union members who showed up for Thursday's board meeting, argued that the MTA's focus on rail violates its legal obligations.
Mann contended that the MTA is required to improve bus service before starting any new rail projects under a consent decree signed by transit agency officials in 1996. The MTA disputes that argument.
An equal number of partisans in favor of light rail turned out for the vote.
County Supervisor Gloria Molina said Eastside residents were disappointed several years ago when the MTA canceled a subway that had been planned for the area.
She said they were adamant about receiving light rail. "This is their second choice," Molina said. "They want access to the rest of the transit system throughout L.A. County."
Burke agreed. "The Eastside of Los Angeles is entitled to transportation just like North Hollywood," she said. "They are entitled to it, and we are going to give it to them."
One of the day's other heated debates was over the airport. It centered on a proposed offramp on the San Diego Freeway at Arbor Vitae Street.
The offramp is supported by Caltrans and the city of Los Angeles, but has languished without funding for nearly 20 years.
It became a hot-button issue after being drawn into the fight over possible expansion of LAX.
The MTA board approved a trimmed-down version of the interchange that would serve only the airport side of the freeway.
Considered a concession to local residents, it passed unanimously.
"They really didn't give us anything," said Mike Stevens, organizer of a large group of LAX growth opponents and one of those ushered from the meeting by guards.
Stevens estimated that 225 residents of Inglewood and other communities turned out for Thursday's meeting, arriving in three chartered buses.
The fight over the Long Beach Freeway extension developed over a change in language describing plans for the freeway that opponents interpreted as a sign the MTA was quietly moving forward to build the long-delayed project.
City officials from South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge as well as residents of the El Sereno section of Los Angeles urged the board to reject the language.
As it stands, plans for the freeway extension are part of the MTA's long-range transportation blueprint, but without any money to back those plans up.
In contrast to the uproar that greeted those issues, the budget itself passed without discussion.
It will pay for hundreds of bus, rail and highway construction projects for the government budget year starting July 1.
Board member John Fasana, a Duarte city councilman and member of a coalition of San Gabriel Valley cities, was elected by other board members as the next chairman, replacing Burke.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 25th 5:29 PM
Heavy
I'm glad LRT supporters showed up in at least equal numbers. It's difficult because it's a work day and I know many people like myself have to work.
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 25th 6:48 PM
Yeah, work can create quite a problem. I thought I was going to be there, until I got a voice mail for a 10:00 a.m. meeting.
What is good is that this shows that the BRU isn't asleep, and can be expected to come out next month for Expo when the chips might be a bit more in their favor.
(they certainly look foolish claiming racism while fighting against Latino activists from East LA - perceptions might be a bit different about the west side, even though the corridor has a very diverse population).
Why is this good? Because it reminds us that we need to be there in force next month.
Jason S.
User ID: 0408214 May 26th 11:30 PM
I plan on taking the day off from work but unfortunately I can not do that too often.
Adrian Auer-Hudson
User ID: 9656233 May 27th 6:14 AM
Right, work's a pain. But we all have to make a living. When this campaign started, I thought it was the most exciting in years.
At the time I was wrapping up an IT assignment in the Bay area and looking forward to being back home.
Little did I know then how dead the LA IT market had become.
When I couldn't find work at home, I took a year's assignment in Omaha. At least I would be back in time for the climax of the campaign!
No such joy. No work for a Walker financial systems specialist in the Southland, so now I am in Edinburgh for six months. My visits home are more rare than ever!
May I express gratitude to those of you who have carried the torch for this great project? I look forward to the day I meet some of the names on this board in person.
Mike Olivier
User ID: 0339064 May 28th 1:33 PM
I'm also impressed by the F4E & their concerted drive for the Expo LRT corridor, and the contributors to these discussions who attend the meetings.
I live in Toronto Canada & belong to the Rocket Riders Transit Users Group.
We have a tough time getting lots of people interested enough to attend transit & city meetings, as transit here's generally excellent.
But the province has cut out all their funding for transit, the feds here do absolutely nothing for transit.
I've seen it does take dedicated time to make a difference, to attend workday transit meetings, make deputations, attend our own meetings, write letters to papers, councillors, other advocacy groups.
This discussion board's a great idea. Our version of it is www.transit.toronto.on.ca (note this isn't the Rocket Riders page but a general transit interest page).
I travel to LA occasionally for work & ride the rail system every single time. It does cover huge distances, and I'm so happy not to have to drive everywhere.
Ruben H.
User ID: 9656233 May 29th 3:20 PM
Since I live on the Westside, I rarely get a chance to ride our city's rails.
Last Sunday, however, I was invited to the Laker game and I had to drop off my kids in the valley.
My wife and I decided we would park at Universal City and take the MetroRail to the Staples Center.
It was a great choice. It took about 25 minutes, including transfer to the blue line, was smooth, comfortable, hassle free and only cost 5.40 round trip for the both of us, compared to $15.00+ that was being charged for parking.
I was amazed at how busy both the Red and Blue Lines were for a weekend, and it was not just basketball fan traffic.
I've been on many subway systems around the world and truthfully the Red Line is one of the nicest single lines in terms of speed, comfort and ease of use (except for the stupid fact that you can only buy your ticket from a machine - they need some human presence in case your bills are too raggedy or too big).
The biggest shame of our rail system is that it doesn't go to enough places.
If the Expo Line existed I could take it downtown and be there in a matter of 10 minutes. I would love to never have to drive downtown.
In this morning's LA Times there was an article lamenting the many freeways from the 1958 master plan that didn't get built - like the Malibu Freeway or the Laurel Canyon Freeway.
There is an Assemblyman from Thousand Oaks pushing to get more of these freeways off the shelf as a way to solve the congestion problem.
There is another way. We need to expand the rail network (and not so painstakingly slow so that only our grandchildren will get to enjoy it) so that more people have a choice of transportation options.
If people have a good experience, they will be sold. "If you build it, they will come." And likely, as the increasing ridership shows, they will stay.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 29th 8:24 PM
Too often is rail compared to buses. It is infrastructure and should be compared to other infrastructure like freeways.
I often think that the MTA should be in charge of operating the vehicles and a separate entity should be in charge of building the infrastructure.
Then you would wouldn't get in ridiculous arguments like "rail taking away from buses."
Nobody ever complains about "money spent on freeways taking away from buses."
Gerald
User ID: 0575574 May 29th 10:59 PM
Uhm, even when the Expo Line is built, it'll take more than 10 minutes since it's going above ground...
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 29th 11:36 PM
One problem with the division of construciton and operation is that you need to properly incentivize (OK, that is not a real world, though it is used way to frequently in my profession so I'll use it here) the agencies to make decisions that are to the maximum benefit.
Not that the MTA is necessarily good at this as one agency, but it will theoretically be worse divided.
For example, rail provides lower operating costs per passenger measure, which should benefit the operating agency.
The operating agency will further benefit from the construction of lines which will attract significant ridership, thus increasing revenue and lowering cost per passenger measure.
The construction agency will need incentives to work towards these goals.
They would face all of the opposition to construction of a particular route, and may not take the proper cost-benefit position for the entire system.
Not to mention the need to coordinate the two agencies in seeking funding for projects (assumably the operating agency is still responsible for the cost of vehicles, otherwise their decisions would be distorted towards minimizing their own costs in ways that may reduce the life of the vehicles).
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 May 30th 11:46 AM
I was thinking along the lines of Los Angeles to Pasadena Blue Line Construction Authoritiy which is constructing a line vs. the MTA which will be the ultimate operator of this line.
The Authority's incentive is that this is the task in which it was charged.
I recognize where you are going with your
"economic incentive" argument but I don't think that is a good argument in this case.
Does Caltrans construct freeways for lower operating cost or to improve the system?
I would say it was the latter.
Since the proposed authority's sole charge is to construct new lines, its overhead is lower and it can build them cheaper. This is the case with the Pasadena Line.
Since the authority is smaller and it's tasks are more limited, it can more efficiently oversee projects under it's domain.
Additionally, you have an agency whose sole job is to build things. The idea of "specializing" comes into mind and the cost efficiencies gained from this are very large.
This also free's the MTA to focus more of it's energy as an operator and in improving it's system.
I guess I could see if building rail projects was was your sole priority as an agency things would get put on the fast track.
Did anybody notice how fast the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority rail corridor is being constructed? They too have their own authority.
David K.
User ID: 9544623 May 30th 7:06 PM
You have some good points, but there is still the decision for the need to build a particular project. The Blue Line was an existing, floundering project.
It is also interesting to note that two of your examples are construction authorities for single projects - Pasadena and Alameda.
That brings the question of whether there should be a separate agency for all construction, or "one off" authorities for individual major projects.
There are certainly arguments for both. A single authority can pursue one goal rather than having to trade things off.
Although many (BRU for example) would like to question Pasadena spending, and claim that money should go elsewhere, the Authority has a singular goal and therefore doesn't need to get caught up with major tradeoffs (money should go to bus, money should go to another corridor, etc etc).
They simply need to make the appropriate tradeoffs to build their own project, such as specific routing decisions.
On the other hand, an overall authority can develop greater specialized resources in specific areas that can be re-used in different projects, rather than having to contract in short term specialists.
Your statement about specialization leading to large savings is dubious. If this was the case, most large corporations do not exist.
There is significant opportunity for savings in a combined organization with compatible goals.
You can still have specialization where it is appropriate, but you can also share common services rather than having to duplicate efforts.
Areas that could be shared include finance/ payroll/human resource functions, IT support and operations, legal, corporate communications, etc. This is a very large cost efficiency.
That isn't to say the MTA is cost efficient, just that large can be more efficient than small and it isn't clear that separate construction and operation agencies would be free from the current inefficiencies.
I think many Expo supporters, myself included, would like to see a JPA for the construction of Expo once we get to that point.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Jun 5th 5:04 AM
Jason S. wrote:
What is good is that this shows that the BRU isn't asleep, and can be expected to come out next month for Expo when the chips might be a bit more in their favor (they certainly look foolish claiming racism while fighting against Latino activists from East LA - perceptions might be a bit different about the west side, even though the corridor has a very diverse population).
How as the Expo Rail supporters line garnered support in the Mid City and Crenshaw areas?
Contrary to popular misconception, people in low-income areas would love to get a rail line because it provides fast, safe transportation.
Has it organized with any churches or business groups in that area?
Remember...Exposition isn't just about taking cars off the Santa Monica freeway.
There is a poor community along the line that would heavily use this line.
They need to be part of the advocacy. It can't just be a coalition of idealists and railfans. You'd never get Expo built.
By the way, the BRU is really a paper tiger. If you wanted to, you can discredit them EASILY. For starters, look at Kym Richards' "Radio Free BRU" page:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
If this is supposed to be a grass-roots movement, how would the BRU rectify the following:
*Most of the members are dirt poor, either in reality or as they are projected by the BRU. If this is so, why does Eric Mann earn $200,000 a year to run the group?
(1999 IRS Form 990: Eric & Lian Mann earned $260,000 before expense reimbursement.)
*Why is Eric Mann rallying against rail in Los Angeles, when he has worked for a corporation responsible for dismantling rail in the mid-20th century, General Motors?
You can check the book out from the Central Library. Here is the catalog listing:
catalog.lapl.org/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?fullRecord+18168+965+351965+1+0
*Since the LCSC, the BRU's parent group, spends a great deal of time and effort indoctrinating members in far left ideologies (socialism and communism), how come they do not follow anticapitalistic principles and not invest in stocks, which is passively making money off the labor of others?
Their investment holdings are attached to their 990 entries, available on Kym Richards' site.
*When the BRU constantly points out how terrible the Los Angeles bus system is, why do they want more buses? Wouldn't it just be the same low-grade service on a larger fleet?
*If the BRU is working in the interests of bus riders, how come they came out in favor of drivers and MTA employees during the strike last year, and even had members marching in solidarity with them?
You could point these out, and dare the BRU to straighten up these questions without using the word racist.
Mike Wills
User ID: 8903453 Jun 5th 11:21 AM
the last one can be answered as follows:
we are showing solidarity with fellow members of the proletariet against the bourgeoise mta.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 Jun 5th 1:05 PM
Just for the record, I don't believe I said that.
I'm curious how many BRU members read these boards. So far two persons claim to be BRU members.
Bart Reed and Mike Wills.
Mike Wills
User ID: 1808544 Jun 5th 2:49 PM
When did i say that?
the previous answer was a hypothetical one.
i would never deliberately join an organization that was as antirail as the bru.
Jason S.
User ID: 9802413 Jun 5th 3:41 PM
Apologies
You used the pronoun "we" in reference to the BRU.
Adrian Auer-Hudson
User ID: 9656233 Jun 5th 4:10 PM
One assumes Bart Reed is our "mole" within the BRU!!
(Note: Known Rail Transit Critic John Walsh also tells people at the BRU meetings that Bart Reed is a "spy".)
Mike Wills
User ID: 2393954 Jun 5th 7:53 PM
No worries- the way i phrased it was confusing
mike