A Latina woman addresses the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). She is part of a crowd of 1,500 people opposing the agency's proposed bus-fare increases. She holds her 3-year-old child up to the board and says, "What would you like me to do? Take the clothes off his back or the food out of his mouth?"
L.A., with 10 million people and 7 million cars on the road, is the freeway capital of the U.S. For more than 14 years, the MTA on one side and the Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union (BRU) on the other have been fighting over the future of L.A.'s public transportation -- a fight with important implications for the future of the environmental movement. The heavyweight bout has grown more high-profile this year. Despite massive opposition, on May 24, 2007, the MTA board of directors voted to raise the daily bus fare from $3 to $5 a day and the cost of a monthly bus pass from $52 to $62 a month. This is just the first step in a draconian trajectory that will, if not stopped, push the monthly bus pass to $75 and then $90, force many low-income people off the buses, and compel people to use or buy old cars instead of taking public transit. These policies will increase toxic air pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions, and make the bus riders poorer while making rail contractors richer.
The fight over the fare hikes has become a cause célèbre. The Bus Riders Union and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are in state court trying to reverse the fare hikes on environmental grounds. The BRU is also in front of the federal courts asking for a five-year extension of a federal civil-rights consent decree controlling MTA actions. Dozens of BRU organizers are on the buses, talking to thousands of bus riders, holding community meetings to plan our next countermove. The fight to reverse those fare increases, buy more buses, and stop future money-sucking rail projects is far from over. This dramatic expansion in the breadth and impact of the environmental movement in L.A. could be a model for urban coalitions throughout the U.S.
The Backstory
The MTA board has 13 unelected members who get the job, and control of a $3-billion-a-year budget, by dint of having won other elected offices -- and who operate like a royal court. It includes all five members of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, four members of the League of Cities, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and three of his appointees. The MTA's primary customers are 500,000 daily bus riders -- 58 percent Latino, 22 percent Black, 8 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 12 percent white. More than 60 percent are women, and more than 75 percent have family incomes ranging from $12,000 to $20,000 a year. These are the hotel and restaurant workers, the domestic and service workers, the security guards, Korean and Jewish grandmothers, the elderly, the disabled, the students going to high school and community college -- the low-income working class of color, the salt of the earth. These are the core constituents of the Bus Riders Union, which was born in 1992 with the audacious slogan "Billions for Buses."
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. In 1994, the MTA tried to pay for its wasteful, over-budget train lines -- corporate development projects masquerading as transportation -- at the literal expense of the bus system. They voted to raise the daily bus fare from $1.10 to $1.35 and eliminate the $42-a-month bus pass altogether. This could have created chaos for low-income bus riders, some of whom take 100 rides a month; it might even have priced them out of public transit altogether. The BRU countered by initiating a civil-rights lawsuit charging the MTA with violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in which the government is prohibited from allocating funds in a racially discriminatory manner. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund went to federal district court and, to everyone's amazement, the court issued a temporary restraining order against the fare increases. The BRU was thrust onto a national stage; even though the ruling came during the height of the O.J. Simpson trial, many media outlets made it their lead story.
So in 2006, the BRU went to court to argue that the decree should be extended for five more years. The federal district court did not agree. We are appealing that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, freed from the supervision of the federal courts, the MTA proposed dramatic increases to bus fares and cuts to bus service.
We called the proposed fare hikes racist because they would impose an unfair burden on low-income Blacks and Latinos, while subsidizing suburban rail lines that carry a higher percentage of white, affluent riders. Every day, we sent 15 to 20 BRU organizer/members on to the buses to warn and mobilize riders about the plan to raise fares. We reached several thousand people a day.
Outrage over the fare increase generated daily media coverage. On the English-language evening news, the story was, "Bus riders say bus fare is racist and pollutes the air. The poor can't afford it. MTA says it is a long overdue budget correction ... and in other news, a woman's cat was caught in a tree. Back to you, Polly." Spanish-language TV, in a county of 5 million Latinos, was huge. At least once a week the story was given feature coverage. "Today, the Sindicato de Pasajeros charges that the MTA is subsidizing new rail projects at $250 million a mile with unfair fare increases that will hurt minorities and the poor." Cutaways to the bus, interviews with actual bus riders, and then, "Remember, the vote on these fare hikes will be Thursday, May 24, at 9:00 a.m." The Latino media really did its job.
But where were the votes we needed? L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had run as a "progressive" and built an impressive Black/Latino coalition in the city. He essentially has four votes on the MTA board -- his own and those of his three appointees. But the mayor has been campaigning for a $7 billion subway from right outside of the BRU office on Western and Wilshire down the Wilshire corridor to Santa Monica (the "subway to the sea"), while the BRU has an alternative plan, a bus-only-lanes rapid bus project throughout all of L.A. County, which could be implemented for less than $2 billion and would serve half a million or more riders. The mayor also wants the expansion of freeways, while we're calling for a moratorium on freeway expansion. Our environmental strategies are at loggerheads. We knew that the mayor was not in favor of a drastic fare hike, but his own rail dreams contributed to the problem. He offered no support to us in the early stages. We planted more than 1,000 lawn signs around L.A. saying, in big, bold, red letters, "Mayor Villaraigosa: Stop the MTA's Racist Fare Hike." The mayor was well aware of the signs, once remarking to reporters that they were "all over the city."
We met with more than 100 community, civil-rights, labor, and environmental groups and generated a broad coalition in favor of expanding public transit, reducing auto use, and fighting the MTA fare hikes.
The Day of the Vote
On May 24 of this year, the MTA held a public hearing before voting on whether to raise bus fares. We hoped to get 500 people to the palatial MTA building, aka "the Taj Majal," for the hearing -- this would have been the largest turnout for more than a decade. We told the MTA to secure overflow rooms and extra translators. The first 500 people were there before the doors even opened, and by 9:30 the fire marshals had to close the building as the crowd surged to more than 1,500. High school students staged an impromptu mock trial of the MTA as they occupied the lobby. Three hundred and fifty people testified at the hearing, perfecting the art of the 59-second diatribe so they would come in under the one-minute time limit. Black, Latino, and Korean women told the MTA that its fare hike was a crime -- they literally had no extra money for bus fare. White environmentalists, for the first time, rallied to the cause, arguing that fare increases and service cuts would drive away the "choice" rider (that is, them) as well as the "transit-dependent" (that is, the urban poor of color who comprised 95 percent of the audience). For the first time, "Stop the rail projects" became a consensus issue, as the MTA had made clear that the whole purpose of the bus-fare increases was to pay for its rail addiction.
Finally, at 3:00 p.m., the mayor introduced a compromise motion -- a lower level of fare increase, reducing service on some of the rail lines, and more creative financing to pay for future bus service in a way that would not require such fare increases. The board majority wasn't interested. They voted down his motion and then passed their own -- an immediate increase in the cost of the daily pass from $3 to $5 and the monthly pass from $52 to $62, with a plan to raise the monthly-pass price to $75 a month in two years.
The crowd, still at 500 so late in the day, chanted, "Fight transit racism! See you in court!" and also, "Thanks, Mayor Villaraigosa, you gave it a good fight." (While the mayor's compromise motion was not what we had wanted, in politics you still have to understand in each battle who are your friends and who are your opponents.)
We were proud of our efforts and the bus riders themselves, but exhausted and frustrated to the point of tears -- sad for bus riders who can ill afford the fare hike, furious at the undemocratic actions of elected officials in a class-based society.
But we were also truly hopeful -- the embryo of an expanded environmental army had been formed. We have a growing alliance with the Natural Resources Defense Council -- a major breakthrough in the politics of the environmental movement. In the past, Black and Latino working-class environmentalists and the fight for a first-class bus system have rarely gotten acknowledgment, let alone support, from the more affluent "white west side" of the city. Things are starting to change.
The Future
On June 27, we went into state court seeking an injunction to stop the fares on the grounds that they violate the California Environmental Quality Act. The BRU had sent 10 organizers out on the buses and got more than 100 depositions in which riders testified that the fare increases, often amounting to an additional $50 a month for a family of five transit riders, would give them no choice but to buy an inexpensive, polluting auto and add to L.A.'s already noxious air pollution. The state court denied our motion for a temporary restraining order, but NRDC and BRU are moving forward and refining our case as we prepare for a full trial on the merits.
The day after the vote, a sympathetic aide in the mayor's office told us, "The board won the vote but you won the day. You set the terms of the debate, virtually all 1,500 people were on your side, and this was an amazing turnout. It is rare that people like us are impressed."
This is our challenge now: how to keep up the morale of the masses at a time when a major "transit" agency fiddles as the planet burns.
So, we pause a moment to appreciate our victories, take a deep breath, and meet to revise our campaign's tactical plan. Then, we get back on the bus, carrying out our next moves in this never-ending chess game of social change. We will keep you posted.
Eric Mann is the director of the Labor/Community Strategy Center and a veteran of the Congress of Racial Equality, the Students for a Democratic Society, and the United Auto Workers. He is the author of L.A.'s Lethal Air and A New Vision for Urban Transportation. His latest book is Katrina's Legacy: White Racism and Black Reconstruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
Climate Citizen: Majora Carter
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 4:39 pm
12 Jul 2007
http://www.freepublictransit.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:41 pm
12 Jul 2007
If by that you mean racially discriminatory, then please say what you mean instead of speaking through epithets.
Eric Mann wrote in the original post: because they would impose an unfair burden on low-income Blacks and Latinos, while subsidizing suburban rail lines that carry a higher percentage of white, affluent riders.
For blacks and latinos, it is neither illegal to live in suburbs, nor to be affluent. Therefore, the BRU's civil-rights lawsuit alleging that funds have been allocated in a racially-discriminatory manner is baseless.
Ironically, relative to IQ and despite the supreme importance of IQ in latently-determining socioeconomic-status (SES), blacks and latinos achieve higher-average SES than do whites. If any racial class in the United States is being treated unfairly, evidence indicates that it is the white class.
By the way, in your post:
all seven times that the race-term latino appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
all four times that the race-term black appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
all two times that the race-term korean appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
the one time that the race-term asian appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
the one time that the race-term pacific islander appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
the one time that the race-term jewish appeared mid-sentence, it was capitalized;
but all three times that the race-term white appeared mid-sentence, it was not capitalized.
Was that on purpose? If so, why?
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 12:50 am
13 Jul 2007
Particularly the bus systems need better routes, reliability and cost reductions to get people riding them. I remember commuting by bus in the past with 20-30 people on the bus while the freeway was packed. 50,000 people commute to Los Angeles from my area every day. There are about 2,000 seats on the 5 trains that service the area and probably the same on the commuter buses. The majority of the rest are single passenger drivers.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:49 am
13 Jul 2007
"Mass" transit will never work. The genii is already out of the bottle. People do not live along arterial ways, in small houses in the city, and commute to "downtown" like they did in the 30s and 40s.
Those days are over.
Any linear technology, on a fixed route that attempts to push people into a mass vehicle, and expect them to have mobility once they exit at the other end is doomed to failure.
We need multi-point transportation, always available, and able to make both short and long routes on demand.
In other words, any "transit" technology that may replace the auto has to be better -- not worse -- than it as a form of transportation.
The only technologies that come close to the personal automobile are:
Bicycles
Texxis ( http://www.texxi.com )
Rickshaws
Regular cabs
We need an improvement, not a retrogression.
Fortunately, the Hydrogen Economy is getting into full swing and it will allow us to have cars that are 100% CO2 free.
Leave mass transit to the politicians, beltway bandits, state government grifters...
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:57 am
13 Jul 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
brarrr Posted 4:18 am
13 Jul 2007
transit free - they think of it as a right but it's not - it's a
privilege. No City is required to provide transit to their residents.
They are only required to make things accessible for the handicapped.
Here in LA, fares haven't increased for over 10 years - that means we
are way under inflation levels. The fare box revenue accounts for about
10-15% of the cost of running the system. That means 85% of every trip
is subsidized by the government! Considering that most transit riders
in LA aren't taxpayers, that's either a bargain or travesty, depending
on what side you're on. I may not like having to pay more but it is a
fact of life that living in the City you pay more for everything.
Transit is still cheaper than driving for most. And don't even get me
started on the BRU's anti-rail campaign. They are blind when it comes
to anything other than smog spewing buses. They use socialist tactics
in a democratic system to blackmail cities, politicians, and to deceive
taxpayers. The Metro board isn't perfect either but they are at least
governed by Brown Act & fair meeting laws.
GRRRR
Permalink
M Sarah Posted 4:25 am
13 Jul 2007
Permalink
amnoelle Posted 4:53 am
13 Jul 2007
Permalink
mihan Posted 5:07 am
13 Jul 2007
I am disturbed to hear that the LA buses broadcast TV programs. (1) What a freaking waste of money and energy, and (2) it's noisy. One of the pleasures in riding public transit is reading, or just zoning out (neither of which is advisable in a car). My condolences.
Permalink
tkoo02 Posted 5:09 am
13 Jul 2007
The reality is that the poor don't have the money to support the bus system. But I will tell you who does... the people driving on the freeways (generally speaking). Why isn't the bus system being subsidized by licensing and car registration fees? This would help two-fold in that it would help the the "clean" bus system out, but it would also encourage people to take the bus thereby reducing traffic and emissions.
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 6:01 am
13 Jul 2007
On the other hand, state and local governments are required to make sure their residents have clean air to breathe. It's probably impossible for a large city to meet Clean Air Act standards without an extensive public transit system.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:27 am
13 Jul 2007
Meanwhile, cities that have any sort of transit program must comply with ADA, which shoots the cost up through the roof.
Which is not an attack on this requirement; it's just a fact: we impose a costly burden (handicapped accessibility) only on the transit system. Handicapped people pay taxes but are not entitled to any sort of services unless the municipality runs a transit system, in which case they are entitled to equal access.
What I think has to happen is for everyone to realize that, when it comes to participation in society, we've created a two-class system, auto users and non-auto-users, and we've handicapped the latter class greatly.
What we need to do is rethink our view of what's in our "transit system" and, instead of pitting the needs of the handicapped against the non-handicapped transit riders (because the costs of service to the handicapped consume so much of the transit budget) while leaving auto owners off scot-free, we need to recognize that ALL modes of transport are part of the transport system, and that non-auto-users are, in practice, completely handicapped by automobile centered design.
Therefore, in a municipality that spends money on amenities for cars (roads, freeways, policing, parking spaces, parking ramps, maintenance, etc.) a right to transit should be recognized.
Once that happens the only question is how to make the transit most efficient, and that means fareless; everyone pays for the whole system; people who prefer to drive are free to buy the vehicle that allows them to drive; if not, the transit system is there to provide the service.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:50 am
13 Jul 2007
And at once GWB and his right-wing friends land into trouble when they have to look negatively on such suggestions as, Everyone has a right to good health care, and, Animals have rights too.
In the case of public transportation in urban areas, it seems that the ethical responsibility of both the government and the citizenship of those areas is to do everything that can be done for the poor, or less well-off, or less capable, within their communities. And that ought to include free public transportation, as well as free health care.
Making public transit free for one and all is a terrific idea too, but it would require a different kind of argument.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
oaran1 Posted 9:11 am
13 Jul 2007
Mr. Mann states that a fare hike will "compel people to use or buy old cars instead of taking public transit." He further writes "The BRU had sent 10 organizers out on the buses and got more than 100 depositions in which riders testified that the fare increases, often amounting to an additional $50 a month for a family of five transit riders, would give them no choice but to buy an inexpensive, polluting auto..."
What ultra efficient inexpensive polluting auto will these individuals be purchasing? The average monthly cost of gas to run an automobile in Los Angeles will far out weigh the transit fare hike.
Were the organizers professional court reporters qualified to take legal depositions?
We are to believe that "over a 100" is a substantive number of the population that rides the bus?
I ride the bus everyday. I was never interviewed.
Permalink
napatransit Posted 3:46 pm
13 Jul 2007
http://thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm
Also some discussion here:
http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine& ...
What does severely obsolete marxism have to do with transit?
Permalink
arty Posted 3:59 pm
13 Jul 2007
Why not bring it out into the country a little and start thinking in terms of 'us' and not them and me. Support community, see your taxs in action and reduce crime, poverty and pollution at the same time. It's not a case of race. It's not a case of environment. It's a case of humanity.
Tom Byrne Illustration
http://www.tombyrne.com
Tom Byrne Paintings
http://www.tjbyrne.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:53 pm
13 Jul 2007
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a social disaster. Ethically, this is worse than a disaster, it is a sin.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
greenlagirl Posted 5:32 pm
13 Jul 2007
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.
http://greenlagirl.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:51 pm
13 Jul 2007
A bus and rail pass for that same bus pass price? Why not, it would pay its way with increased revenue from more riders. And vast savings otherwise spent on unecessary freeway expansion. And the same approach in every city would pay off in reduction of GHG climate disaster. How much does GHG related drought and fire alone cost the taxpayers of LA county?
But tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, and oil wars are soaking up the tax dollars to do that. The bottomline fat cats sit back and enjoy their power while we the people are set at each others throats over racism.
The BRU tactics expose the strategy employed. Wake everyone up to how classism is used to add to the bottom line of corrupt contractors and politicians.
Can we afford public transportation, public education (not day prisons), universal healthcare, and a carbon emission free energy economy? Only if we take the tax dollars back from the crooks who pay politicians to let them siphon off 1000 dollars for every dollar in "campaign contributions" (bribes).
Stop oil wars and corporatist scamming and build a better culture world wide.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 9:46 pm
13 Jul 2007
Replacing street parking with bike lanes would be the next big step so that people can bike instead of taking the buses.
Cars are the enemy of urban life
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 12:37 am
14 Jul 2007
Of course, it is absurd to fund rail construction out of bus fares ... this is like a factory funding the purchase of a new machine tool out of this year's income.
But when a well designed rail system is put in place with a bus system with integrated routes, fares, and schedules, both the rail system and the bus system increase their ridership.
Rapid transit simply has far more seat capacity per square foot than buses, and at a lower total cost per seat. However, much more of that cost is up front cost, and trying to fund it out of operating revenue is financial insanity.
The real culprit here is the Bush administration. A major benefit of a new rail system is the impact on energy demand for transport ... and the runaway current account deficit, driven partly by constantly rising Energy Imports that are now about 1/3 of our total Energy, is a national problem. The Federal Government should be funding energy saving local rail projects that offer better transport bnenefits per dollar at a 50/50 split at the very least ... instead, a project has to offer three times, four times, or even more transport benefits per dollar to get funded at all, and then it is being unded at well under 50%.
A level playing field for Federal road and rail funding in this country would help eliminate the absurd situation of two distinct, and equally necessary, parts of a transport system fighting over the same pool of money.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 1:05 am
14 Jul 2007
However in consideration of the comments here and elsewhere, it seems that perhaps I was wrong.
The article Derailed Dreams in the LA Weekly doesn't reflect well upon you and the work of BRU.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/derailed-dreams/10606/
Nor do the subsequent letters in response.
http://www.laweekly.com/general/letters/letters/3972/
But good news for BRU -- the partnership with NRDC should help bring in funds from their jet-setting donors if not from the group itself, and get you press protection as well -- the LA Weekly and most mainstream press has in the past never been inclined to criticize NRDC and its corporatist policies as far as I can tell ( excepting of course from the hard right Fox News perspective ).
But for your critics, they'll just have another sentence or two to add to their comments about your work: Recently BRU and Mann partnered with NRDC, the group that backed NAFTA and designed and defended utility deregulation in California and around the United States. In Los Angeles in the matter of the Ballona Wetlands, NRDC took a dive while soaking up donations from the developers, thereby undercutting grassroots groups attempting to stave off development and restore one of the largest parcels in Los Angeles. Furthermore, NRDC has backed the emission trading approach to Los Angeles pollution which has been shown to be fraught with faults and loopholes.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
feonixrift Posted 10:16 am
15 Jul 2007
All our bus agencies here are struggling. We need more money, and less of it to be tied to how much the fare box pulls in. But the bottom line is we need more. They're attempting an incredible task, with far too few resources. Because I live in an area where you can't get by just using one agency's buses, I pay even more for my pass - $70 now. It is too expensive, yes, but what can they do? The money has to come from somewhere, the government provides a lot but not enough, and what they provide depends on how much the fares pull in.
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 1:01 am
16 Jul 2007
It's totally myopic to pit bus vs. rail, when the real fight is between transit in general and highway funding.
I wish this passion was used to bring pro-environment, pro-worker people together, rather than dividing them.
Permalink
feonixrift Posted 3:22 am
16 Jul 2007
Permalink
Militant Angeleno Posted 9:53 am
16 Jul 2007
Permalink
geneffer Posted 10:01 pm
16 Jul 2007
The bus system is sooooooooooooooooooooo slow...due to congested traffic, and many, many, many bus stops.
Please research these items:
-Speed of the buses
-Number of bus stops
-Numbers of the ridership of the rail
Permalink
MassachusettsTransitAdvocate Posted 12:05 am
17 Jul 2007
Regarding TV on buses, several transit agencies around the US are instituting such programs. They are generally funded completely by advertising dollars, with no installation cost to the transit agency and often some revenue paid back to the agency. I agree that it would be better not to have the extra disturbance of TV on our transit vehicles, but given agencies' difficult budget constraints, these kind of creative arrangements may be necessary. If you don't want to see TV on your buses, lobby your local, state & Federal representatives for more operating funding for transit!
Regarding an early comment about the majority of bus riders in LA not contributing to the subsidy of public transit because the subsidy comes from tax dollars (with an implication about citizenship status)... A good portion of operating funding for transit in LA, and most California systems, comes from sales tax revenue. Sales taxes are paid by all, regardless of status.
Some resources on the topic of rail, bus and transit funding in Los Angeles... (Google for results)...
Brian Taylor at UCLA has researched and written extensively on this topic.
Martin Wachs, formerly of UCLA and UC-Berkeley, has researched and written extensively about transportation funding options, taxes, equity, and related topics.
Jonathan E.D. Richmond has written papers and a book on rail transit in LA.
Some of these resources paint a less-than-favorable picture of rail projects in Los Angeles. I do not point them out only show one side of the story -- I am in favor of BOTH rail and bus transit expansion in LA -- but because they are generally well-researched, thoughtful articles and papers.
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:58 am
17 Jul 2007
What a PERFECT illustration of the abysmal depths to which public transit has fallen--the idea that we would not only herd people onto buses with inadequate capacity to give everyone a seat, but that we would then bombard them with the most annoying drivel that Madison Ave. can provide.
Like the old National Cities Line scheme (buy the rail systems and rip them up so as to sell more buses and tires . . . and cars), this seems more about ensuring that people don't ride buses than anything else.
Want advertising revenue? Stream 20 or 30 digital radio stations with some ads and provide every seat and all the straps with a headphone jack.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink