Actually, Browne Molyneux, we BRU critics mostly work on issues, educate ourselves, try to build alliances, etc. And if you think the BRU are great, attend one of their meetings. That should prove to be an eyeopener…

Dana and Kymberleigh have done a pretty good job compiling information.

http://thetransitcoalition.us/BRUtruth.htm

The Transit Coalition also has a BRU truth site.

———————-

“Facts that discredit the BRU facts on METRO point by point.”

However, you have given a good suggestion on how to more effectively stand up to the BRU and that I appreciate.

They don’t care about what you think. The BRU focuses on one target METRO and the people who hate the BRU focus on the BRU and that gets what accomplished exactly, oh yeah nothing. Because again the BRU doesn’t care what you think and since they don’t control the budget well you see where this is going.

You’re not going to discredit them by going on blogs and saying you hate them over and over decorated with some greenie-eco rhetoric that has no facts attached to it.

I mean you continue to do it, but it’s a bit of futile thing. Sort of like this conversation we are having right now.

Now you want people to listen to your side. You want to discredit the BRU. Then come up with some easy to read facts about METRO.

Facts that discredit the BRU facts on METRO point by point.

Not about Eric Mann involvement in a sexy orgy or baby sacrifices or how he’s funded by the drug lords of Afghanistan, because most of us don’t care about that kind of thing.

—————-

Nonsense.

The REAL problem I have with the BRU is their anti-rail, bus-only platform, a transportation vision that will not improve mobility, nor help Southern California be economically prosperous and environmentally sustainable.

It isn’t “style” that causes me to object to the BRU, it’s SUBSTANCE.

———————

“The whole hating the BRU is silly.”

———————

My disapproval with the BRU is not “silly”. The BRU pursues a transportation vision which I firmly believe is counterproductive. Nothing less than the future of Los Angeles is at stake.

Los Angeles needs a strong bus AND rail system, not a bus-only system, and I won’t apologize for speaking out against the BRUs bus-only agenda.

Up until a very few years ago they were the only ones fighting for the rights of people who had took public transit in LA. The problem is METRO not the BRU. Every organization is going to do what they are going to do to fight for their constituency. Now if 10 years ago I had seen any of these new groups as of late fighting for people who took public transit I might have more of an open mind in regards to listening to the side of people who have issues with the BRU, but as of now, no. Regardless if you agree or not with the BRU or the sales tax, they brought up some points that should have been brought up.

In my opinion the real problems people have with the BRU is the fact they bring up race a little too often for the delicate sensibilities of the average citizens of LA. Every group is a front for someone else. Every group has members who are clueless as to what’s actually going on. The way the BRU is set up and funded is really not all that different than the vast majority of effective advocacy groups.

I have issues with the sales tax and the measure, but I’m pretty afraid to not vote for it. I do not like the position I’m being put in now, but I’d have to agree with the sentiments of Ingrid, though with a slightly less optimistic slant.

I want to put aside what I want and try to think what would be best for the people around me, because in the end everyone else’s happiness or unhappiness will eventually impact my life. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. What’s the most altruistic way for me to vote. This could be a huge thing for LA. I don’t want to be part of the reason it did or did not happen depending on my actions and the actions of others.

http://transit-insider.org/master.html?http://transit-insider.org/bru/index.htm

There is nothing to indicate it is “is a front organization funded secretly by automotive interests”. Or even gets money from labor unions, as some often assert; in fact I know its relationship with the labor mobvement is rather rocky–note that the Labor Federation is gung ho for this tax. Evidently mostly cluleless westside liberals pay the freight for the BRU and their large staff, suite of offices in the Wiltern complex, etc. The BRU bylaws make clear the members have no say how the millions raised in their name is spent. And the Planning Committee that calls the shots includes LCSC paid staff. Those folks in the yellow shirts are stage managed and manipulated — most know zero about transit funding or policy and their trauining is soley in how to chant and where to stand for the cameras. Sad.

http://busridersunion.org/engli/JoinUs/member-bylaw.htm

Those who want to cut off their nose to spite their face are welcome to do so. Meanwhile the rest of us have 100 days to seize the future.

Where bikes and pedestrian projects are concerned, there truly is no need for massive amounts of money. A few bits of leftover General Fund for most cities could transform their streets into bus-, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly places.

It helps to have an agency like the MTA handing out “free” money for projects (less staff time), rather than having to dig into your department head’s (or city manager’s) budget, so I can see where the MTA’s sales tax proposal will help non-car and non-train modal groups.

However, it isn’t really doing that much for non-car and non-train users.

The existing, multi-billion dollar, MTA sales tax income can have its funding formula re-oriented slightly (i.e. away from highway expansion and car-only projects) and we won’t need to levy this tax.

I would prefer a measure that would strip out the exclusive auto-only funding provisions of Proposition A and C, personally.

That, of course, isn’t on the table right now.

If the MTA found a way to re-orient their guidelines for local returns money, and Transportation Demand Management money, to go to pedestrian, bus, and bicycle projects then I could see a coalition being formed to support this “big project” sales tax. With changes like that, a coalition of support could come together in support of this tax even if the lame highway projects included in the tax increase stay.

It would be a tragedy in 30 years to be looking back at basically the same lacking transportation system we have now, only with 3 million more people in the county, much greater density, choking congestion and pollution, even more automobiles without a viable alternative, and certainly no bike or pedestrian improvements.

Oppose this imperfect sales tax if you want, but I don’t believe there is a better alternative coming down the pike later.

And what’s up the imaginary 710 freeway. That thing should never exist, why is that even in the bill?

I think we need to get rid of Roger Snoble, maybe that would be step one in getting out of Imagination Land.

Browne

Thanks Newton.

I’ve only seen Steve via his picture on the LA Times site, oddly he is one of the few people who actually looks better in real life.

This conversation is getting silly and very LA, so I’m going to stop now.

Second off though this has nothing to do with the conversation, but the press in the above picture I think that press’ name is Steve Hymon of the Bottleneck Blog/LA Times. I’d bet cash money on that.

Browne

I’m sorry I used profanity in the above posts. It was unnecessary to make my argument and that type of language tends to kill a good debate on issues.

The massive, capital intensive, highway and transit project that are allegedly going to be funded through this tax increase will do little to directly help the lot of cyclists.

I rode my bakfiets 30 miles yesterday, from Lincoln Heights down to Gardena and back, to pick up about 200 lbs. of tools and equipment. I rode by the 110 bus lane, I rode alongside the Vermont rapid buses, I passed by the Blue Line station, I rode in the Figueroa bus only lane – and it fuckin’ sucked.

The transit projects that are allegedly going to getting funded do next to nothing to make my life, as a cyclist for every trip, better. They do next to nothing to insulate our economy from high fuel and energy prices. They do not allow the many thousands of people who have come to transportation-based cycling in the past few years have a better life.

The MTA can delete one paragraph from page 19 of its Call For Projects funding guidelines, and I’ll be happy. Until I see something from the MTA, I am going to work to see this sales tax increase fail. That is how it works, and I’m not buying any of the bullshit arguments apologists and rail junkies throw out there.

Cyclists are not asking for much! Do you know what the total cost of building out the (already planned and designed) L.A. citywide bikeway network is? The bikeway network that would turn 5% of L.A.’s car traffic into cyclists? The total cost? $60 million.

The massive amounts of money that go to the stupid big projects is a waste when compared with real, cheap, solutions, like roadway modifications to make bicycle, pedestrian, and bus access fast and safe. I’m not talking about anecdotal improvements to our lives and economy – I’m talking about real measurable, tangible, improvements in our quality of life by spending pennies on the dollar for what these stupid highway expansions and railway construction projects cost.

They need 2/3 – good luck a**holes.

I would support it no matter what because I know the MTA is basically having an emergency bakesale to promote a really sweet dream.

A few years ago, the gold line didn’t exist. I grew up in Eagle Rock and went to school in South Pasadena. No Gold Line existed.

Now it does. I love taking the gold line out to Pasadena with my bike and riding home to Echo Park. I would love to do the same trick on other trains.

That is why I support the sales tax! I want the trains and buses and bikeways and walkways to EXIST!!!

I sincerely believe that if they got the money, the MTA would be so excited and if we kept solid pressure on them from dedicated bicyclists and pedestrians, that we could secure some of those funds once they were available.

Or, would have nothing.

After all Villaraigosa did commit to a percentage of local retuns.

What percentage Mr. Mayor?

Amend the funding guidelines. Include bicycles as a solution and enchancement to a transit system.

I hope they/we get it.

They’re not going to change the funding guideline and it’s unlikely they’ll change the metrics (though I believe Pam O’Connor did discuss that at some point). I think there should’ve been money specifically set aside for bikes, but there wasn’t. The question becomes, will bicyclists be better off with or without this bill?

I think they’ll be vastly, vastly better off. More trains and more buses means it’s more viable to ride your bike for those crucial first and last mile distances. It means heading out your door with just a bike could mean traveling anywhere from the beach to Pasadena to the valley. And we can assume that at least some money (admittedly not enough) will in fact go to livable streets and other bike-friendly projects.

I don’t think your alternative is true. If we don’t pass it, it’s not that “autotopia” is just going to up and die. Instead the roads will degrade, as will the bus system and existing train lines, and the city will slide towards unlivable over the next twenty or thirty years, but there won’t be some big cathartic moment where everyone gets smart and supports bike and train policies that make sense. More likely, this is as close to that moment as we’re gonna get, and if we don’t take it now, it’ll only be harder. Every year you don’t build needed infrastructure it gets harder and more expensive to build and you regret it more and more. Imagine if we’d actually built a proper subway line in the 90s and were talking about expanding that now instead of building all these new lines from essentially scratch?

If these projects get built, it’ll be much easier to improve bike lanes and livable streets once people get out of their cars and start using the new trains. This project is necessary just to get people to realize roads aren’t the answer, and if this project passes, we can still campaign to get Metro to change their metrics as well as campaign for projects for the money that local cities get. The fight for the local return money didn’t end this week. If the bill passes, that money can still be fought for.

The Countywide Planning and Development Department of the MTA uses only car-volume and car-throughput metrics to judge Local Returns projects. If the MTA board were to alter the metrics (I have specific recommendations), I could see a coalition of bicyclists fighting for this sales tax increase.

Otherwise, fuck that shit. The whole autotopia, happy motoring, 20th century consumer experiment is going to come crashing down soon – so there will be more room for bikes anyway. I’d rather deal with the consequences of that than have to answer to my daughter as to why I didn’t take a stand for the one thing that matters to me anymore (since I totally gave up on any political movement outside of L.A. County).

I have a feeling a lot of bike riders and pedestrians in L.A. would understand that perspective.