|
Post by nickv on Jul 14, 2007 14:56:25 GMT -8
The BRU had a few words about the Purple Line in Saturday's LA Times newspaper: Here we go again... The BRU says the money would be more efficiently spent on more buses... Wait a minute, something isn't adding up! Look at the present demand for travel along this corridor. Now, examine the lessons taught by the Metro Orange Line BRT project. Next, check out the mobility toolbox provided by Metro: www.thetransitcoalition.us/TTC_SpeedCapacityGraphLG.htmNow, per the Tranist Coalition: Do you think a parade of 40 ft busses will work better in place of a heavy rail Subway from Union Station to Santa Monica? What would Wilshire look like if that's the case? How long would an end-to-end trip take on local 40 ft bus?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 14, 2007 15:37:24 GMT -8
Send the BRU a letter, they would say that they want less people to ride the bus so that people have a more comfortable ride.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 14, 2007 16:45:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 14, 2007 16:46:35 GMT -8
|
|
James2886
New Member
Ride'in the rails to work or for fun!
Posts: 6
|
Post by James2886 on Jul 14, 2007 19:24:51 GMT -8
IMHO the BRU is (indirectly) funded by the oil and gas industries, that is why they are pro-bus. That is partly true and apart of their ulterior motive. The BRU is partly funded by the Nathan Cummings Foundation and Liberty Hill Foundation. These foundations promotes the idea vehicles powered by mainly CNG. That is why the BRU sound like a broken record when mentioning CNG instead of "we need buses powered by other than diesel" statement. It's a bit of a cliche to say the BRU is only funded by Oil and Gas industries. If it were all true than they would support the MTA buying artics. Remember some articulated buses have the same engines as 40 footers. Due to it's increased weight, the artics have slower acceleration. Even MTA's 9200's have the same engines that is used for 40 ft. buses. That extra weight causes the engine to consume more fuel. So we have to look at the BRU's Marshall Applewhite, Eric Mann. This person has a very radical socialist point of view. He thinks agencies like LACMTA should be something like a Goodwill instead of it's main purpose. Meaning he believes the MTA should hire more and more union based jobs like for example a bus driver. For that reason the BRU is againest MTA constructing rail lines and purchasing buses longer. Both rail lines and high capacity buses use one(1) operator to operate a vehicle(s), carrying more people than a standard 40ft. bus. So there is no need to hire extra workers and I think thats what jerks Mr. Mann's chain. www.transit-insider.org/bru/funding.htm
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 15, 2007 16:50:23 GMT -8
Here's an idea...can we organize a protest rally outside of the BRU's office on Wilshire/Western? We can get the media to understand the "common sense" side and listen to us. We'll get more people on our side, see the stupid shortcomings of the BRU and we can gain sensible support for a mass transit system. We need to gain attention, much like how the idiotic BRU does.
And..I'm serious about this. We need to get the public to understand the stupidity of the BRU and how they are corrupting the ability of the MTA to develop a world-class transit styem. Our main purpose would be to show the idiocacy of the BRU. Anybody down? Maybe we can plan for sometime in August?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 15, 2007 16:54:00 GMT -8
I'm down. I would go there for sure, but let's see what kind of support we get. But we would need to get kind of a lot of people, and I'm sure a protest permit or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 15, 2007 17:28:26 GMT -8
I'm down. I would go there for sure, but let's see what kind of support we get. But we would need to get kind of a lot of people, and I'm sure a protest permit or something like that. I'd be interested if we can get regular riders to participate. I'm pretty sure that most blue line riders favor more rail and most are also bus riders. It would be important for a protest of this type to reflect the rider demographic. But rather than protest in front of the BRU I'd always thought that it would make sense to organize a march down one of the proposed rail lines. For example start at Wilshire/Western and end at Wilshire/La Brea or something like that. It could maybe even be a series of protests/marches down different proposed routes.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 15, 2007 18:13:52 GMT -8
I would like that idea a lot. A parade of sorts down Wilshire. If we're doing it there, why not end at Santa Monica? I'd love to have the end seeing the sunset on the beach.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 15, 2007 20:56:42 GMT -8
Verrrrrrry interesting...a protest FOR something, instead of against something, which definitely is something that I think would be helpful considering how much I'm always badgering people to spend their energies fighting FOR something and not decrying how unfair reality is.
Considering how the likely first segment of the Wilshire Subway would proceed to Fairfax, perhaps a march down Wilshire from Western to Fairfax is in order. It's not too long, and you'd probably have the Mayor and the Subway to the Sea coalition on board.
Verrrrry interesting, indeed. To the rest of The Transit Coalition, maybe this is exactly what we need. Perhaps on a Sunday, when the turnout might be highest and with least disruption, or on a weekday so that commuters can see the turnout?
(I am very torn between getting the mostpress vs. causing the most disruption and alienating those who would otherwise be on our side, hence I prefer a Sunday and with a few weeks forenotice to get the best turnout. Overall, though, it would be nice for TTC to get more notice, and the BRU to get less notice.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 15, 2007 20:59:42 GMT -8
If it's a weekday I can go, but I'm sure that not many others can. I might be able to go on a weekend, only if it is when I'm at college. I'm sure that it would be a source of many people, who are more transit dependent people than college students? If you want to get support from USC students, then get the march to go to UCLA.
I'm sure you would have a lot of people supporting this if we get the message out early and we plan this thing well. Maybe we should make a thread about this if we're serious.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 15, 2007 21:09:33 GMT -8
Thanks for info, but now I'm finding conflicting information elsewhere! I'm still learning about the BRU and I need accurate info, and accurate info only. Okay, kindly, please make sure your facts are accurate and unbiased before you post. I just don't want to be misled. I threw out my original reply post because of conflicting info about BRU funding... I'm trying to figure out what exactly the BRU is all about and the TTC site has some good info at thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htmI understand that there may be misleading Web pages out there on the BRU, but please watch where you get your information. Thanks for any help in this manner.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 15, 2007 21:12:39 GMT -8
Hey, could we get some t-shirts like the BRU too? Except can we pick a better color than yellow?
How about a rally at the end of the march to give more explanation to what we will be doing.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 15, 2007 21:55:51 GMT -8
Lot's of misinformation is being put up by you guys. Perhaps you should click over to the Coaltion website BRUtruth pages and read the BRU tax returns. These returns show that the BRU averages about $35,000 per year from grants out of a $1.7 million budget. The Cummings foundation hasn't given grants to transit organizations in years. Most of the money the BRU gets is from guys like you guys who read this website. Eric has about 11 guys who chip in over $1 million per year. That is from individuals, not Corporations, Not Grants....INDIVIDUALS. If some of you guys would chip into the Coalition, we'd be bigger too. It's not that hard to donate, just click and act. The Bus Riders Union is not important any more, since they don't have their fangs in Metro. But, at the same time tax deductible nonprofits like The Transit Coalition could have more influence, if we had more funding. We do go to City Hall, Metro, Metrolink, MagLev, Sacramento and Washington, DC and we have some influence on policy decisions. The studies now being conducted by Metro including the Downtown Regional Connector and the Harbor Subdivision are direct results of our efforts over the past several years. As for this call to protest the BRU, I can't think of a bigger waste of time or effort. How about thinking about attending The Transit Coalition meeting? How about actually thinking about volunteering your time and coming into our office and helping out? What about subscribing to our weekly eNewsletter, so you can know what is going on? We have asked for calls and letters to the governor to Protect High Speed Rail and the Transit Spillover. Have you done so? My latest emails show that Expo might take a big hit because of the governor and his lack of interest and focus on transit. Also the action steps are on the weekly eNewsletter link above.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 15, 2007 22:58:25 GMT -8
Thanks for the post. I was just on the BRUtruth page trying to figure out exactly how much funding the BRU gets and found that based on the info that was posted there, I had to edit one of my replies. I was also going to question the other people's posts because I found conflicting information, but you beat me to it On top of doing that, I also want to suggest that if any transit agency opens any public hearing whatsoever, get involved one way or another! E-mail or mail your comments (keep them unbiased and for the good of the whole community) during that period if you cannot make it to a hearing. I e-mailed a bunch of service suggestions when RTA held a public hearing in May, and they actually replied and were seriously going to take my comments into consideration for their next service change. One of my comments included timed weekend Commuterlink service from the IEOC Metrolink line in Corona to Old Town Temecula and Pechanga. They considered favoring that one since it would benefit the Metrolink Weekends program. If they do go for it, no more having to drive out of OC to experience the ever popular Pechanga, or Old Town... That's just a tip to improve our transit system.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 16, 2007 5:44:34 GMT -8
Although I agree with Bart's recommendations to call the Governor and Legislature with regards to protecting the Expo Line and transit funding, I'm not in favor of pouring cold water on any grassroots initiatives those on this board wishes to take.
I personally wouldn't recommend protesting the BRU per se, because it gives the BRU more attention (and therefore credibility) than it deserves. If anyone wishes to march peacefully for more funding for mass transit--and contacts the press to make sure that TTC gets the attention it deserves in leading such a clarion call, then I applaud you for that effort.
I do recommend, however, atttending the Transit Coalition meetings and subscribing to the weekly eNewsletter, which is put out by Bart Reed and Numan Parada of TTC and is as good as it gets when it comes to being kept in the loop on transportation issues.
TTC has brought major focus to the Downtown Connector and Harbor Subdivision to both Metro Boardmembers and staffmembers, and if you're interested in arranging meetings to go right to the source of decision-making, then TTC is for you.
I applaud each individual's efforts--I remain convinced that one person can make a difference--and I urge you to work with TTC to make our shared goals/dreams become reality.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 24, 2007 21:42:22 GMT -8
Well, I read the recent TTC newsletter and found a link to some helpful information posted on Green LA Girl. Should the BRU argue in the press that a parade of 40 ft busses instead of the expansion of the Purple Line would better fit West LA's transit needs, this story could help build up a great argument for an expansion a balanced regional transit system with both rail and busses, not just 40 ft busses alone. ............................... Green LA Girl greenlagirl.com/2007/07/14/pro-rail-advocacy-is-not-a-racist-tactic/So the LA transit system got some ink — or should I say screen space? — on Grist this week. Unfortunately, the piece was written by one Eric Mann, a big Bus Riders Union (BRU) dude. Titled “Fighting transit racism: Building the environmental movement on the buses of L.A. ,” Eric largely blames Metro for LA’s public transit woes — and especially blames rail. Instead of pointing to real changes we need to make to adequately fund public transit, Eric’s argument scapegoats Metro for not doing what Metro doesn’t have the money to do. It’s one thing to be against the Metro fare increases; it’s quite another to blame planned subway lines for it. But here’s a sampling of Eric’s argument: The MTA has fought tooth and nail against investing in the bus system that so many of the city’s residents depend on, preferring instead to build costly and little-used rail lines to serve the wealthier suburbs and a coterie of contractors and contributors. Little used? Only meant for wealthier suburbs? One thing’s for certain: The BRU’s pretty good at getting press. Below’s the comment I wrote in; others of you might do the same. If you’re a leader of a transit group in LA, you might consider pitching and penning a counterpoint post for publication in Grist. ___ While I do commend some of the work that the BRU has done, as a transit taker in LA, I have to say I’m often very frustrated and puzzled by the BRU’s anti-rail stance. Often, the BRU frames support for rail as a racist tactic that’ll help the white and rich while ignoring the poor minority groups — when there’s no proof for this argument. As it is now, the LA subway system doesn’t even come close to what’s generally considered the wealthier areas of greater LA (Beverly Hills, West LA, Santa Monica). Basically, the BRU vilifies non-transit takers on the westside for not already taking public transit — then calls westsiders racist when they try to get more public transit in the area so they can actually use it. Moreover, a big reason we need rail is that people don’t live and work in the same place — meaning that many of the poor people that the BRU purports to speak for are dependent on public transit to take them to and from the westside where they work. At the moment, we have an award-winning bus system, with frequent buses on the major arteries going from the east to westside — Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico — all of which I use. Yet during rush hour, all of these buses are already at capacity — even the 720, running every 3-7 minutes. And because these arterial streets all go through different cities — including the notoriously transit-unfriendly Beverly Hills — bus-only lanes are a tough, tough fight and slow in coming. BRU people often say the money earmarked for subways should be used to push for more buses and bus-only lanes instead — and vilifies the MTA for not pushing rail funds towards buses. This argument ignores the fact that, while rail costs more to build initially, it saves money on the long run through higher capacity and lower maintenance and personnel costs. Lastly, the rail lines in LA can’t simply be called “little used”; ridership’s quite large for some of the lines, and growing (Metro’s numbers are here). Plus, a ride on the subway, including the Expo line currently in construction, costs exactly the same as a ride on the bus. To argue that rail necessarily means a financial burden specifically affecting the poor is simply misleading.
|
|