If you really want a more big picture view of what’s happening with LA public transit, get to the next Southern California Transit Advocates (SoCaTa, first mentioned here) meeting.
After months of scheduling difficulties, I finally made it to my v. first SoCaTa meeting via the Big Blue Bus’ 10 line. SoCaTa’s a transit group that holds monthly meetings downtown — with the mission toward “Public Transit Policy Analysis, Advocacy and Education.”
At first, I was a lil disappointed by the 15-person turnout; but the crowd soon swelled to about 30. More importantly, I found out that SoCaTA members — especially those in leadership positions — have an awesomely strong knowledge base, and seem to live and breathe transit info.
Perhaps this isn’t surprising, considering that SoCaTa brings in super-informed speakers to present to, and answer questions from, its members. At Saturday’s meeting, Pete Serdienis, Metro Stops & Zones Manager, gave us some of the nitty gritty details as to why some bus stops are on the near side (before the stop light) while others are on the far side (a combo of safety, bus transfer, and community relations issues), why more bus stops aren’t unified (many reasons — Rapid buses, for ex, have installed GPS systems, which could confuse other bus riders), why some bus stops always seem so dirty (lots of use, not enough resources), and why so many bus benches sport graffiti for so long (a less-than-motivated bench company that was awarded the city contract).
SoCaTa’s publications are similarly impressive; a monthly newsletter — free to members — contains pretty much all important current transit info, and the annual transit book ($10) contains pretty much all the info you may need or want about the dozens of transit sytems in LA and its environs.
All of this make me wonder: Why isn’t SoCaTa bigger and more popular? I mean, even the Friends for Expo group, which is really just about a single line, had a huge crowd at its meeting, from (what seemed to me) a wider demographic cut (more young people, more “yuppie” people, etc.). Obviously, I’m not saying it’s “better” to have younger or yuppie people; I just think that diversity’s an asset for grassroots movements.
Kymberleigh, SoCaTa’s Public Affairs Director, explained that because SoCaTa has “a diverse agenda rather than one focued on a single issue,” some leave after a few meetings because SoCaTa can’t just focus on their pet issue. Moreover, the Bus Riders Union sometimes overshadows SoCaTa’s work, Kymberleigh said.
I’m also guessing that the membership fee — which at $10-25 a year is hardly a steep one — still plays a role, even though the fee goes to good causes: covering the newsletter production and mailing costs and maintaining the website.
Still, SoCaTa has big goals for expansion. The group’s just received the first $2000 of a grant from the American Public Transportation Association for a series of public meetings this year along the Wilshire corridor. And SoCaTa plans to represent at various conferences and expos around town to engage transit takers (or newbies) all over SoCal.
Interested? SoCaTa holds meetings on the 2nd Saturday of each month at 1 pm in Angelus Plaza, 255 S. Hill St., 4th Fl, Downtown Los Angeles. Send questions to busnrail@yahoo.com.
Update, 1/22/07: Zach at LAist has the skinny on Norman Bench Company — the company behind our bus benches that never get cleaned — among other interesting public transit and city clean-up details. Well worth the read –
Interesting that you mention them, the BRU, and Friends 4 Expo n basically the same breath; my understanding is that if you stuck the BRU and Friends 4 Expo in a room together and gave them Nerf baseball bats, they’d promptly go at each other. They’re at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum, as the BRU has their anti-rail tirade going on and the Expo line is hardly aimed at South LA, though it’ll make a nice transfer point for rapids coming up from the south bay. Where does SoCaTa fall on that spectrum, do they take a position or try to stay away?
If they’re acknowledging that the Wilshire corridor is an issue, sounds like they’re more pro-rail than not, and if that’s the case, my guess is that SoCaTa (and potential members) may shy away from the BRU.
Anyhow, thanks for the information, sounds like something I may want to get involved in, advocacy-wise, once I’m out there.
Comment by Aaron — January 16, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
For the record, I am So.CA.TA’s Public Affairs Director, not its secretary. :)
As such, I can answer Aaron’s questions and provide broader detail to Siel’s narrative.
We are believers in a multimodal approach to public transportation. We know that rail is not a replacement for bus service, but that it provides a faster connection between regions to/from bus service. Both must co-exist, and there needs to be an effective network of bus service in order for rail to be effective as well.
So we are both pro-rail AND pro-bus.
In the case of the Wilshire corridor, we recognize that the bus service is overloaded and that this corridor is the one where a subway is the only feasible option. We were supporters of the Expo line but took a secondary role to the more focused Friends4Expo.
We would agree with Aaron’s generalized statement about Expo interconnecting with north-south Rapid service. That is an excellent example of how an integrated multimodal approach should be implemented, in fact. Bravo!
The BRU is by no means a friend to us, but that is more their doing than ours. There is a page on my website which shows their response when So.CA.TA’s executive secretary attempted to join, just to be on their mailing list for notices of rallys, etc.:
http://www.transit-insider.org/bru/gabbardrejection.htm
One major difference between us and the BRU is that we discuss our positions on such matters as bus service changes, fare restructuring, and the like, and then present an agreed-upon position to the policymakers. The BRU doesn’t discuss or vote on anything; their higher-ups write the speech and then a member reads it verbatim.
The one thing we have going for us, despite a smaller number of activist members, is that we are rational and reasonable. That has earned us the respect of Metro and the other transit agencies in Southern California, and we have a reputation for being the truly credible voice of the passengers.
We’ll be happy to see you when you get here, Aaron.
Comment by Kymberleigh Richards — January 16, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Actually, the majority of the BRU’s board is made up of representatives elected by members, the rest are representatives of the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which founded the organization. From my observations at several meetings (I am not a member), they seem as open to discussion as any other organization.
The BRU fulfills an important role in transit politics because they focus on representing the majority of people who ride on public transit, who are overwhelmingly poorer people of color. They have made perfectly valid points in criticizing the neglect that the bus system has received and the misuse of public funds to build stupendously expensive pet projects that disproportionately benefit a whiter, wealthier population.
Comment by Marvin — January 16, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
The problem is that the BRU gets stuck in these nutty ancillary issues. 1,000 New Buses, 1,000 Less Police. (?) Palestinians in Palestine = Jews in Nazi Germany. (??) (http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=9058) Oh yes, don’t forget, open borders for all, full amnesty for anyone in the country illegally, and Blacks and Latinos should stop fighting each other and “start fighting the people that are putting us in jail” (i.e. advocating violence toward law enforcement). (http://www.busridersunion.org/engli/pdf%20files/May%201st%202006%20ENG%20Immgr%20Amnesty%20flyer.pdf) Are we sure the BRU isn’t a proto-anarchist organization?
Comment by Hank — January 16, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Hanks comments seem to be out of a logic 101 lecture on specious argumentation. The BRU spends the vast majority of its time and resources trying to organize bus riders to support the purchase of more buses and things like low-cost student bus passes. Criticizing the funding priorities of the mayor or supporting the human rights of Palestinians hardly makes them “proto-anarchists”. If Hank has any actual evidence that the BRU, as an organization supports “violence toward law enforcement”, where is it?
The fact of the matter is that such statements may be controversial but the BRU has spent most of its time successfully lobbying for more buses and lower fares for people who don’t have the luxury of driving in LA.
Comment by Marvin — January 17, 2007 @ 1:52 am
And for another great adovacy group working to improve transit for all is the Transit Coalition -their monthly meetings at Philipe’s are very informative and highly reccomended.
Comment by Jessica — January 17, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Marvin wrote:
The BRU fulfills an important role in transit politics because they focus on representing the majority of people who ride on public transit, who are overwhelmingly poorer people of color.
And the Bus Riders Union has done a miserable job of representing them. It is an organization that knows zero about public transit. It knows zero about operations, financing, planning or laws and regulations. Worse, it feels it is entitled to categorically deny and dismiss these realities because the members feel they are victims somehow entitles them to an exemption.
The Bus Riders Union cultivates its membership from non-riders drawn from Eric Mann’s leftie Rolodex and bus riders who like what the group accomplishes because it somehow sticks it to whitey. These members do not stray too far from Eric Mann’s script.
They have made perfectly valid points in criticizing the neglect that the bus system has received and the misuse of public funds to build stupendously expensive pet projects that disproportionately benefit a whiter, wealthier population.
The Bus Riders Union has poisoned the well with this argument. And the argument is dead. The BRU’s points were never valid.
The primary beneficiaries of rail projects are the same users who ride the buses. There is no fare barrier (rail is not made expensive to keep poor dark-skinned riders away) and there is no service barrier (stops do not deliberately bypass the ghetto). And Metro has left the service grid intact, so riders have a choice to avoid trains.
Metro Rail has offered a fast, reliable alternative over the bus, and this has enabled riders new work, educational and recreational opportunities. This is why the Red Line has over 125,000 riders, Blue Line 80,000, Green Line 40,000 and Orange and Gold lines 20,000 apiece.
Not even Metro’s riders tolerate the last resort of local service, but this is what Mann wants.
Mann is more concerned with the interests of the bus drivers and Metro workers than the riders. He hopes the Consent Decree created more jobs than were lost when the General Motors plant in Van Nuys closed.
Comment by Wad — January 17, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
No matter how much the BRU says that there a organization who claims to speak for all will never convince me……There has been too many years of name calling, hate lititure, disrupting the MTA Board meetings, backstabbing other transit groups who disagree with them, and to top it all off they called the voters of earlier props. “morons” because they voted for a system that would have build rail lines in Los Angeles.
Comment by Jerome H. Weymouth — January 17, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Marvin, the fact is that the BRU was one of the major sponsors for the Great American Boycott, and took a much more extreme stand than some of the other participants. The BRU has done good work on the student pass issue, to their credit, but more often they run rallies that have nothing to do with transit. That is understandable because their reason to exist just vanished like Cinderella’s coach at midnight. Unfortunately, they are spending more and more time at this. Their irrational opposition to the recent fare increase has resulted in a gaping budget deficit. MTA’s monthly pass at $52 is lower than most other major cities save San Francisco and the Texas cities. Incidentally, a steady increase in monthly pass and base fare would not have increase prices to much more than today (perhaps $60 or so, with a $4 monthly pass, similar to the base fare of a Philadelphia or Cleveland) but the MTA wouldn’t have to gut suburban service as they are currently doing, which ironically shows the BRU’s true purpose of “screw the suburbs” as hurting real riders, some in their own constituency, who now can’t get to jobs in suburbs, or can’t travel into Orange County without a two hour long detour.
Comment by Hank — January 18, 2007 @ 1:08 am
They did great things with the student bus pass, but that reminds me of the phrase that even a stopped clock is right twice per day.
Metro Rail serves all communities that it runs through in Los Angeles, and the wildly successful Blue Line primarily services minority and low-income commuters, simply based on the neighborhoods it serves. The extension of the rail network will allow all people to reach jobs and activities throughout the Los Angeles area; the low-cost monthly pass allows all riders access to areas throughout Los Angeles, without the additional hassle and inherent unreliability of bus lines that over-crowd and become stuck in traffic.
Whether the BRU is motivated by ulterior motives, or simply uninformed, their arguments have caused harm to Los Angeles transit needs. The long-term answer to overcrowding is more capacity, and the only sure way to provide reliable capacity on the most crowded and busy routes is through additional rail lines. Increasing access throughout LA County is the surest way to help minority and low-income residents; Eric Mann’s bus-only policy serves, either inadvertently or negligently, to advocate that those low-income car-less patrons remain stuck in their under-served neighborhoods.
Finally, increasing access throughout the county will drive up ridership, and driving up ridership will allow Metro to take the revenues to the bank, and ridership numbers to Sacramento, to ask for more funding to build more infrastructure; for all of us who find ourselves loving life in Los Angeles but pining for New York City transit, the only sure way to improve and expand the metro system is to drive up ridership, and the only way to drive up ridership is to provide a consistent, reliable, and safe service that people *want* to take and *prefer* to driving, not just more busses. (see: red line to Universal City for Citywalk restaurants, or Hollywood for restaurants and clubs, or gold line to Pasadena for old town and shops, or blue line to Long Beach for the harbor and tourist attractions).
Comment by Aaron — January 18, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Here is an interesting fact, which I am sure Marvin will claim I made up.
Had the consent decree not frozen fares for the first half of its existence, and the BRU cry “foul” everytime Metro proposed increasing fares during the second half, Metro would have taken in almost $700 million, just in the past five years, which would have completely paid for the operation of the 1.4 million hours of bus service Metro was forced to add under the consent decree.
Instead, Metro is facing a structural deficit of $1.8 billion over the next ten years, and now will have to both raise fares and eliminate the lowest ridership service just to keep running.
The BRU’s preferred option, which is to keep running all the service AND keep fares artificially low, would result in Metro going bankrupt by August of next year. That, dear yellow-shirted radicals, means NO buses to ride.
This is the legacy that the BRU has given the region.
Comment by Kymberleigh Richards — January 18, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Wow — I really didn’t anticipate that this post would turn into a BRU vs. type of post, but I feel like I’m learning a lot from the comments.
As someone who has never attended a BRU meeting, I can only speak to why I’ve decided not to attend BRU meetings. I get the BRU emails, but the org’s vehemenent anti-subway stance both puzzles me and turns me off of the org altogether. I’m all for more buses where needed — I think the 200 line esp. could use a few more buses — but that doesn’t make me shun all subway lines. They’re all part of the same system, and both are necessary to meet different needs –
As someone looking at BRU from the outside, I have to say I see it as an org that defines itself more against other transit orgs than for anything. Most of the emails I’ve gotten from BRU seem to me to espouse knee-jerk reactions (Resist all fare raises, period! Fight against subways, period!).
It may be that perhaps the internal BRU discussions don’t reflect this mood — and I hope that’s true. But the rhetoric communicated to those who may be at the stage of finding out more about BRU before joining is NOT one that makes the discerning transit taker join the group.
From the comments on this issue, it appears that the problems at BRU run deeper than the PR / comm level. But I can say with a good deal of confidence that at the v. least, BRU needs to work harder on conveying the reasons behind its positions, and on educating its members as to what these root reasons may be.
Kymberley — I corrected your title! Not sure how the mistake happend… but thanks for the info you’re offering via this blog :)
Comment by Siel — January 19, 2007 @ 9:01 pm