[left image by Laura Fisher; image below by Elsie Escobar]
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.
Siel,
I was directed to your website from the Grist story. I want to thank you for your reasoned response – I was thinking many of the things you said were probably the case.
I am a Geographer and Transit student/rider in Iowa City so I am always glad to hear people thinking and writing about these issues.
–Robert
Comment by Robert Anderson — July 14, 2007 @ 9:26 am
From Sydney’s postings earlier, what appears to be the case is that BRU people conflate Metro and Metrolink. They’re idiots.
Comment by don hosek — July 14, 2007 @ 10:07 am
THE BUS RIDERS UNION IS RACIST! WHY? BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.
Comment by Militant Angeleno — July 15, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Siel wrote:
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.
One mistake is to write off the BRU’s stance or agenda as stupid. It is not. Most of us just don’t know how to “think Marxist.”
The high concept of the Bus Riders Union: if public transit can be made miserable to just the right extent, we can finally have a revolution.
Mann has devoted his life to leftist causes. He has decades of organizing and management experience. Granted, the BRU/LCSC has zero knowledge of transportation, and has an outward appearance of incompetence. Not so.
Mann knows that there are two other prominent transit advocacy groups in L.A., and he knows they watch him carefully. He knows he’s being kept in check. So it’s not that he really does not recognize his own ignorance.
Mann operates under a thought of Marxism that believes in all thoughts, actions and institutions serving as the heavy artillery of the bourgeoisie to maintain an upper hand in the class war. Essentially, all of Western civilization is a conspiracy set up by wealthy elites to advance their own interests. Seeing this conspiracy created victims, it is important for the victims to first recognize the artillery as having created their misery, then to delegitimize it so they’re not trapped by it.
This is the operational thinking of the BRU/LCSC. The difference is, the BRU understands the “other side” of the argument while most everyone else, thinking in the Western tradition, does not know how the BRU works.
But what does all this ideological background have to do with rail, and why the BRU hates it?
Well, much of the support for incorporating rail into Los Angeles transportation has come from the middle classes. These are generally people who are well-educated, have enough discretionary time and money for advocacy, and have the political savvy to make their interests known.
To Eric Mann, this class is a threat because it douses the flames of revolution. Had rail been out of the picture, Mann would have seen the “tipping point” for social revolution. He, like many Marxists, knows very few people will voluntarily and rationally opt for revolution, so the masses need an event, the tipping point, to be engulfed and agitated into action. The middle class will just screw up things. They’ll emphasize quality- and quantity-of-service improvements, insist on efficiencies and demand a system of accountability. They’re more comfortable with such corporate solutions, and these are almost always detrimental to workers.
Rail is definitely detrimental to jobs, particularly those of bus drivers. A train can do the work of several buses, thereby reducing work opportunities and the consequent union strength of the labor force. Mann is especially conscious of this fact, since he witnessed the closing of a factory where he was an organizer.
This is hard to comprehend for most people, but this the ideoological foundation of the BRU.
Comment by Wad — July 16, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Yeah and it’s a dumb foundation. So is this some story of a guy out to get revenge? The guy trying to fight “the man”? BS.
Rail is needed. Period. The Metro covers so much area in Los Angeles it’s amazing. More buses? Why, there are already enough! We don’t need anymore vehicles on the roads.
He’s anti-LA.
Comment by Brian — July 16, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
In case anyone’s interested …
I have a “guest columnist” opinion article in today’s Daily News on the BRU:
http://www.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_6399237
Comment by Kymberleigh Richards — July 18, 2007 @ 7:56 am
Brian said:
Yeah and it’s a dumb foundation. So is this some story of a guy out to get revenge? The guy trying to fight “the man”? BS.
To most of us educated in the liberal tradition, pretty much anyone who went to school in the last 500 years, we would immediately write it off as dumb. And rightly so.
But Eric Mann is looking for people who react with a desired reaction, with consistency. And he will always find them.
Interestingly enough, if you think he casts a better net with the poor and uneducated, Mann’s most loyal base comes from people with at least some form of college education.
Many bus riders give up on the Bus Riders Union because of its Bolshevist-style deliberation. Their needs aren’t addressed, and they are often “educated” that they must do their part to push forward a movement. Cynically, this is just code for downplaying service quality issues because it would be against solidarity with the unionized Metro workers.
College students, however, are full of committed leftists who know of Eric Mann’s reputation and who are looking for a machine to rage against. These are the people you can’t argue against, since they are cognizant of Western thought and are immune to falling for it. They pretty much know how you think and what you will say next and are ready for it. Meanwhile, you’d get frustrated by their stubbornness.
At least the ‘net is pretty much a BRU-free zone, since the diversity of people and opinions have helped marginalize the group.
Comment by Wad — July 19, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I am a BRU member and read your comments. I am not a Marxist but have been a member of the union since 1998.
It makes perfectly good sense to me to fix what we already have. Whenever rail is expanded many lines are cut to fund the new projects and we are left without these lines which are not replaced with rail or any other lines. This is deplorable in my opinion.
Rail or buses, this city does not operate in a way where I can tolorate not having a car. I just can’t get around. At night the rail hardly runs past 10pm (Red Line) and the wait is sometimes so long I forfiet the ride and walk back to the bus stop to catch another 2 buses. The 217 use to turn into the 2 and continue up Sunset into Silverlake. Once the rail was built this line was cut. What has replaced this line? Not the rail.
So what is going on here? Don’t worry with the riseing cost of rent things will become so unaffordable we won’t have any more “vitims” as you call them, living in the city or anywhere near it. The transportation system will belong soely to the so-called middle class.
Comment by Clinton — August 7, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Nice try, Clinton, but you are dealing with people here who actually know the facts, and can counter the half-truths you have been brainwashed by the BRU to parrot.
First, the Red Line does not stop operating at 10:00. It runs until past midnight.
Second, nowhere near “many” lines are “cut” when rail is expanded. Yes, service that operates in the same corridor will be reduced, but that is because — despite the BRU’s claims to the contrary — people will choose the rail over the bus if it goes to the same place. That is why, as your misstated example, Line 1 service was cut back when the Red Line extension to Hollywood opened in 1999 because … the passengers who wanted to go downtown from Hollywood Blvd. stopped riding Line 1. (And, in case you overlooked it, overnights, when the Red Line is not running, Line 2 service does continue as Line 217.)
If people weren’t riding the rail, the bus service would have to be increased (you BRU people saw to that). So less service is a direct result of less passengers using the service.
Bus service cannot be the entire answer. If you add more buses, they simply get stuck in traffic. The “real world” passengers (as in, not your members) understand that the rail gets them where they are going faster. And that is why they want the subway extension down Wilshire.
You do, of course, realize the hypocrisy of being against rail when your organization is headquartered in the high-rent penthouse of the Wiltern Theatre building, across from the Wilshire/Western subway station …
Comment by Kymberleigh Richards — August 7, 2007 @ 7:26 pm