Post by bennyp81 on Jun 22, 2005 8:14:57 GMT -8
mike wills
User ID: 9328513 May 7th, 2001 2:24 AM
here is something that has always bothered me about the BRU. they are not a union in any realistic sense of the word since the vast majority of the people they claim to represent are not members, nor are ever likely to be members.
secondly, it seems unlikely to me that they actually truly represent the main sentiment of bus riders- certainly very few of the bus riders that I have ever met while riding the mta
so why do they call themselves the bus riders union?
Dave K
User ID: 9544623 May 7th, 2001 3:38 PM
I would speculate that is because they base their organization in part on leftist rhetoric, so need to keep their name in line with that in some way. Furthermore, as you have noticed they do claim to represent all MTA bus riders, a position which would be more transparently untrue if they simply called themselves the bus riders advocates or something like that.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 May 9th, 2001 11:08 AM
Well, this is a free market economy. Nothing is stopping anyone here in Southern California from forming a non-profit corporation to help bus users.
It just so happened that Eric Mann saw a market opportunity and got some grant funding to represent his class of users.
And, remember he has actually done something. Getting One Million per year in Grant Funding to run BRU is quite an accomplishment for anti-capitalists.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Jun 10th, 2001 2:17 AM
Bart Reed wrote:
And pulling down $200,000 a year while the members are in abject poverty.
Jason S.
User ID: 0408214 Jun 10th, 2001 11:05 AM
I remember vividly, seeing a bunch of yellow T-shirt wearing, picket carrying BRU members boarding the Red Line after a protest at the Democratic National Convention.
These folks had the option of choosing hundreds of bus lines that run through downtown and yet they choose to ride the Subway. _How Ironic_ that in their actions they demonstrated that they prefer the mode of transportation which they so often speak out against.
I wondered if it even phased them how hypocritical they looked.
Bart Reed
User ID: 9746563 Jun 10th, 2001 11:13 AM
Actually the 1999 BRU Tax Return 990 just became available.
Eric and Lian Mann jointly grossed more than $260,000 during 1999. Plus additional fringe benefits such as phones, travel, lodging, food, auto and occupancy are not itemized per person.
You may see 3 years of BRU tax returns by going to this page on Kym Richards Website and clicking on the links:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
Eric had a compensation package of $122,001 in 1998. Lian made less than $50,000, so she is not listed.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Nov 24th 12:46 PM
Thats disgusting. I know a few people in the BRU who would trip on this info. I actually would have involved myself in this organization if I hadnt educated myself on them and the current situation fully.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Nov 24th 3:29 PM
Actually, Eric made more than the MTA CEO Julian Burke during 2001, 2000, 1999 and 1998.
You can see the last four years of Eric Mann's tax returns at:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
Considering that most of the BRU organizers and staff make about $20,000 per year, plus there are a ton of volunteers, you would think Eric could get better results than a few loud demonstrations that are being ignored by the press.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Robert
User ID: 0122954 Nov 24th 7:10 PM
Bart,
The link above can not be found.
Bob
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 24th 10:19 PM
try this link:
www.transit-insider.org/brufacts.htm
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Nov 24, 2002 3:24 PM
...at the last BRU meeting, on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2002, Eric Mann read a statement from the Central Committee about my Transit Activities and branded me a "Spy" to those in attendance.
Later in the meeting, Eric called me a racist...
So, it is important to know that BRU is becoming more marginal week by week to our transit future.
The only issue is the next ruling that the Special Master will make in early December. He could ask for more buses to be placed upon the streets or he could ask the Joint Working Group to agree upon a method to determine current overcrowding.
The evidence the BRU presented was about overcrowding in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Then the MTA presented crowding data from 2001/2002.
The old overcrowding had been addressed, but the BRU didn't care. Using Stale Data is another of their techniques to distort the truth.
Perhaps BRU is more than just a Cult. They are NIMBY's that love traffic congestion!
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 24, 2002 5:54 PM
If the Special Master doesn't order the MTA to place more buses on the streets, then justice will not have been done, in my opinion, since the overcrowding continues.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Nov 25, 2002 1:31 AM
John, a special master cannot simply issue an edict to make congestion go away.
Streets are congested. Buses break down. There are a host of other factors that cause congestion that will still happen regardless of the number of buses rolled out.
Get it?
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 25, 2002 9:00 PM
A massive amount of additional buses would most definitely ease overcrowding, it seems to me. And I still see FAR more cars on the streets than buses.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 25th 10:50 PM
John: how would you define "massive?" Wouldn't the need for a "massive" number of buses on a corridor indicate the need for something more substantial and more reliable than a bus?
Robert
User ID: 8750183 Nov 25th 11:38 PM
James,
Yes, but the BRU wants only busses. If your headway time is too short, all the busses will be bunched up, still, everyone will still get on the first bus, and the busses following will still be empty, thus, the BRU will demand even more busses. The BRU is ANTI-RAIL.
Bob
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 26th 10:11 PM
James, I tried to post a response to your comment above, but I see that it hasn't appeared. If this one appears, then I'll try again.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 26th 11:09 PM
James, I tried again awhile ago to respond to your post, but I now I see that THAT post has not appeared, although this one now has. So...I'll try YET AGAIN. If this one doesn't show up, I'll try again some other day or night; LOL.
As I've said many times, I won't think there are enough buses on the streets until they outnumber cars. Of course, I think there ought to also be passenger rail running below or above most of the city's major streets, but who knows when or if there will be? And even if that dream ever does come true, the city will still need (in my opinion) more buses than cars running on the streets themselves.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 27th 1:37 AM
John, if your ultimate goal is to get more buses than cars in Los Angeles, then I would dare say that L.A. will never have enough buses- at least not to your satisfaction.
(note: I'm going to get philosophical here and describe things at a "well, duh" level for the sake of those who Don't Quite Get It, so I hope most of you will bear with me for a moment):
according to most statistics, there are roughly 8 million people living in Los Angeles County, including about 3 million in L.A. and the rest living in Santa Monica, Long Beach, Pasadena, Lancaster, Claremont, etc.
the amount of cars in Los Angeles also number in the millions, although not equally distributed among its 8 million residents.
now, if all 8 million of those residents lived in a relative straight line from West Hollywood to downtown, then serving all of these citizens by bus would be easy. but, they don't
Los Angeles is almost ridiculously spread out, and what's more, people travel in all directions and as ludicrous as it may seem, often travel long distances.
so, a person may live in a comfortable valley suburb but work in Century City, go to the beach on weekends, shop one place, send their kids to school another, etc. etc.
the automobile, for all of its problems, has provided remarkable amounts of freedom, convenience (park in a garage at home, drive to a parking lot at work) and flexibility- at least in theory. that is the priniciple at work.
for any substitute to successfully REPLACE the automobile in daily life, it would have to go everywhere at all times. the number of buses needed would have to be gargantuan.
if we believe basic economics, at some point the sheer number of buses would become an inefficient disadvantage: a traffic jam composed entirely of buses is no better than one composed entirely of cars. for an example of this, head for LAX and take a look at the various shuttle vans getting in each other's way.
a more realistic scenario, and its one that's we've seen at park and ride lots from Norwalk to Chatsworth is this: car owner drives to station, takes train or bus rest of the way to work.
nobody on this message board has ever recommended any one single form of transportation, be it buses, light rail, subway or cars, be allowed to dominate at the expense of all others: "buses uber alles." only the BRU has ever suggested that.
a "massive" amount of buses alone, however many that might be, can never solve all of Los Angeles' problems.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 27th 4:17 AM
Not to mention that a "massive" amount of buses would slow down traffic and would definitely not attract many car drivers.
Not to mention that spending all that money on a "massive amount of buses" wouldn't leave much left for anything else. Rail has a much better auto-to-transit conversion rate and is the much wiser investment.
User ID: 9328513 May 7th, 2001 2:24 AM
here is something that has always bothered me about the BRU. they are not a union in any realistic sense of the word since the vast majority of the people they claim to represent are not members, nor are ever likely to be members.
secondly, it seems unlikely to me that they actually truly represent the main sentiment of bus riders- certainly very few of the bus riders that I have ever met while riding the mta
so why do they call themselves the bus riders union?
Dave K
User ID: 9544623 May 7th, 2001 3:38 PM
I would speculate that is because they base their organization in part on leftist rhetoric, so need to keep their name in line with that in some way. Furthermore, as you have noticed they do claim to represent all MTA bus riders, a position which would be more transparently untrue if they simply called themselves the bus riders advocates or something like that.
Bart Reed
User ID: 7733333 May 9th, 2001 11:08 AM
Well, this is a free market economy. Nothing is stopping anyone here in Southern California from forming a non-profit corporation to help bus users.
It just so happened that Eric Mann saw a market opportunity and got some grant funding to represent his class of users.
And, remember he has actually done something. Getting One Million per year in Grant Funding to run BRU is quite an accomplishment for anti-capitalists.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1244314 Jun 10th, 2001 2:17 AM
Bart Reed wrote:
And, remember he has actually done something. >Getting One Million per year in Grant Funding to >run BRU is quite an accomplishment for anti->capitalists.
And pulling down $200,000 a year while the members are in abject poverty.
Jason S.
User ID: 0408214 Jun 10th, 2001 11:05 AM
I remember vividly, seeing a bunch of yellow T-shirt wearing, picket carrying BRU members boarding the Red Line after a protest at the Democratic National Convention.
These folks had the option of choosing hundreds of bus lines that run through downtown and yet they choose to ride the Subway. _How Ironic_ that in their actions they demonstrated that they prefer the mode of transportation which they so often speak out against.
I wondered if it even phased them how hypocritical they looked.
Bart Reed
User ID: 9746563 Jun 10th, 2001 11:13 AM
Actually the 1999 BRU Tax Return 990 just became available.
Eric and Lian Mann jointly grossed more than $260,000 during 1999. Plus additional fringe benefits such as phones, travel, lodging, food, auto and occupancy are not itemized per person.
You may see 3 years of BRU tax returns by going to this page on Kym Richards Website and clicking on the links:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
Eric had a compensation package of $122,001 in 1998. Lian made less than $50,000, so she is not listed.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Nov 24th 12:46 PM
Thats disgusting. I know a few people in the BRU who would trip on this info. I actually would have involved myself in this organization if I hadnt educated myself on them and the current situation fully.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Nov 24th 3:29 PM
Actually, Eric made more than the MTA CEO Julian Burke during 2001, 2000, 1999 and 1998.
You can see the last four years of Eric Mann's tax returns at:
home.pacbell.net/krichrds/brufacts.htm
Considering that most of the BRU organizers and staff make about $20,000 per year, plus there are a ton of volunteers, you would think Eric could get better results than a few loud demonstrations that are being ignored by the press.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Robert
User ID: 0122954 Nov 24th 7:10 PM
Bart,
The link above can not be found.
Bob
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 24th 10:19 PM
try this link:
www.transit-insider.org/brufacts.htm
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Nov 24, 2002 3:24 PM
...at the last BRU meeting, on Saturday, Nov. 16, 2002, Eric Mann read a statement from the Central Committee about my Transit Activities and branded me a "Spy" to those in attendance.
Later in the meeting, Eric called me a racist...
So, it is important to know that BRU is becoming more marginal week by week to our transit future.
The only issue is the next ruling that the Special Master will make in early December. He could ask for more buses to be placed upon the streets or he could ask the Joint Working Group to agree upon a method to determine current overcrowding.
The evidence the BRU presented was about overcrowding in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Then the MTA presented crowding data from 2001/2002.
The old overcrowding had been addressed, but the BRU didn't care. Using Stale Data is another of their techniques to distort the truth.
Perhaps BRU is more than just a Cult. They are NIMBY's that love traffic congestion!
Þ--Þ--Þ
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 24, 2002 5:54 PM
If the Special Master doesn't order the MTA to place more buses on the streets, then justice will not have been done, in my opinion, since the overcrowding continues.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Nov 25, 2002 1:31 AM
John, a special master cannot simply issue an edict to make congestion go away.
Streets are congested. Buses break down. There are a host of other factors that cause congestion that will still happen regardless of the number of buses rolled out.
Get it?
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 25, 2002 9:00 PM
A massive amount of additional buses would most definitely ease overcrowding, it seems to me. And I still see FAR more cars on the streets than buses.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 25th 10:50 PM
John: how would you define "massive?" Wouldn't the need for a "massive" number of buses on a corridor indicate the need for something more substantial and more reliable than a bus?
Robert
User ID: 8750183 Nov 25th 11:38 PM
James,
Yes, but the BRU wants only busses. If your headway time is too short, all the busses will be bunched up, still, everyone will still get on the first bus, and the busses following will still be empty, thus, the BRU will demand even more busses. The BRU is ANTI-RAIL.
Bob
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 26th 10:11 PM
James, I tried to post a response to your comment above, but I see that it hasn't appeared. If this one appears, then I'll try again.
John
User ID: 9510053 Nov 26th 11:09 PM
James, I tried again awhile ago to respond to your post, but I now I see that THAT post has not appeared, although this one now has. So...I'll try YET AGAIN. If this one doesn't show up, I'll try again some other day or night; LOL.
As I've said many times, I won't think there are enough buses on the streets until they outnumber cars. Of course, I think there ought to also be passenger rail running below or above most of the city's major streets, but who knows when or if there will be? And even if that dream ever does come true, the city will still need (in my opinion) more buses than cars running on the streets themselves.
James Fujita
User ID: 1049474 Nov 27th 1:37 AM
John, if your ultimate goal is to get more buses than cars in Los Angeles, then I would dare say that L.A. will never have enough buses- at least not to your satisfaction.
(note: I'm going to get philosophical here and describe things at a "well, duh" level for the sake of those who Don't Quite Get It, so I hope most of you will bear with me for a moment):
according to most statistics, there are roughly 8 million people living in Los Angeles County, including about 3 million in L.A. and the rest living in Santa Monica, Long Beach, Pasadena, Lancaster, Claremont, etc.
the amount of cars in Los Angeles also number in the millions, although not equally distributed among its 8 million residents.
now, if all 8 million of those residents lived in a relative straight line from West Hollywood to downtown, then serving all of these citizens by bus would be easy. but, they don't
Los Angeles is almost ridiculously spread out, and what's more, people travel in all directions and as ludicrous as it may seem, often travel long distances.
so, a person may live in a comfortable valley suburb but work in Century City, go to the beach on weekends, shop one place, send their kids to school another, etc. etc.
the automobile, for all of its problems, has provided remarkable amounts of freedom, convenience (park in a garage at home, drive to a parking lot at work) and flexibility- at least in theory. that is the priniciple at work.
for any substitute to successfully REPLACE the automobile in daily life, it would have to go everywhere at all times. the number of buses needed would have to be gargantuan.
if we believe basic economics, at some point the sheer number of buses would become an inefficient disadvantage: a traffic jam composed entirely of buses is no better than one composed entirely of cars. for an example of this, head for LAX and take a look at the various shuttle vans getting in each other's way.
a more realistic scenario, and its one that's we've seen at park and ride lots from Norwalk to Chatsworth is this: car owner drives to station, takes train or bus rest of the way to work.
nobody on this message board has ever recommended any one single form of transportation, be it buses, light rail, subway or cars, be allowed to dominate at the expense of all others: "buses uber alles." only the BRU has ever suggested that.
a "massive" amount of buses alone, however many that might be, can never solve all of Los Angeles' problems.
Roberto
User ID: 8374593 Nov 27th 4:17 AM
Not to mention that a "massive" amount of buses would slow down traffic and would definitely not attract many car drivers.
Not to mention that spending all that money on a "massive amount of buses" wouldn't leave much left for anything else. Rail has a much better auto-to-transit conversion rate and is the much wiser investment.